Talk:5G/Archive 1

Deletion of the article?
In 13 June 2010 a deletion proposal template was added to the article, with the motivation "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also, citation needed." The article may be deleted if the message remains in place for seven days. What is your vote?
 * Keep the article. Since the prod template, five published sources have been added to the article. A search in Google scholar and Google books shows more scientific publications on the topic exist. However, the article should be improved by footnotes, from those sources as well as from published news magazines. I don't have time to fix that. Mange01 (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete the article. Where did the template go?  This article is pure speculation, and just because a very few papers refer speculatively to what might be after 4G and call it 5G, doesn't mean we should have an encyclopedic article.  Perhaps a short section on 4G deficiencies would be warranted in the 4G article.  It is utterly ridiculous to have a 5G article when the marketing departments of the mobile providers are still arguing with the ITU what is 4G.  If the former win, it is possible that LTE/HSPA+/802.16e will be designated as 4G by the ITU and LTEA/802.16m will be the 5G.  This article wild speculation and original research, and should be tagged as such as well as tagged for deletion. Jpgs (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh! Now I see it was a full year ago. It still should be deleted. Jpgs (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep the article. Rubbish comment about LTEA ever being classed as 5G; preposterous idea by someone who clearly has no understanding of the business aspects involved. LTE will roll into LTEA in the same generation, eg. perhaps 4.5G, because that is the exact reason for the teleco's to invest in the technology upgrades to their systems now; longevity of use by customers on BOTH types of LTE. Just because the marketing has been allowed to prevail so that 3.9G LTE devices are branded 4G, certainly does not mean the ITU would suddenly define LTEA as the generation afterwards. And anyway, things change in tech world all the time, but it doesn't mean that we delete what is current now under the auspices of what may happen in the future. (+ as per my comments below). Jimthing (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete the article. The article is just pure speculation of the worst kind. It looks like people trying to advertise in a very scorrect way their work. I have never seen something so low level on wikipedia.--3enix (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete the article. No point what so ever of the article, its just speculating, rather than delivering fact.--talk (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete the article. 5G is a marketing term, tacked onto research that may be used in 5G technology, to increase funding and visibility.  At most this article should simply list the possible technologies that 5G may include, with a redirect for each one (i.e. list of terms).

Reverse copy-violation
The 5G section of that article quotes the 18 June 2010 version of this Wikipedia article.

Article needs a lot of clean up
The article starts off with some garbage, and is vague in the rest. 184.151.127.131 (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

And should be deleted. The entire Research section is a random speculative list containing a number of non peer-reviewed writings.

I've never tagged an article for deletion before; how do we do it? Otherwise I'll have to use this as an example to my Mobile Wireless Networking Class next semester of why not to use Wikipedia. Jpgs (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't create this article, but I have tried so save its life... The research section is a summary of peer-reviewed articles for most of the part, and those are definitely not garbage. More research might have been published lately, or are upcoming.
 * The prognoses section was poor. My intention was to give the article a less optimistic twist than before, and as compared to some of the research papers. The section is based on the same sources as the research section, and is also based on an interview in Swedish with an Ericsson research boss published early this spring. He was very sceptical towards higher bit rates than 1Gbps, and to starting a 5G project now. But the text should have more footnotes. I have now removed some of the text.
 * We could invite more people to the above voting and/or to improve the article, for example from the WP:TEL project and discussion pages of other cellular telecom articles. Mange01 (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, this should definitely stay. There are peer reviewed papers and research happening, along with a clear historical context (the 10 year generation cycle) for a next generation after the 4G we are entering now (in the West at least, in Korea they have had 4G-type devices for some time already, hence why they are leading the way on such 5G research!), so there is no reason whatsoever for deletion. This has been through the "ringer" (joke) a number of times. Tidy - yes; removal - no. So please end these repeated ill-informed removal requests. Jimthing (talk) 07:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Good! You should have credit for creating the article.
 * The first "3G type" device was IS-95, reaching the market sometimes around 1995. The first "4G type" device was WiBro/ mobile-WiMAX around 2005/2006. Should we mention that in the article? If the 10 year rule holds we should see a first "5G type" technology commercialized somewhere in the world around 2015, and a formal international 5G development project should be launched by 2012, after the 4G standard is finalized, and concluded by 2022.Mange01 (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I work now in the wireless industry, and have been in academia previously. This article and especially the research section feels like a parody of a bad conference article: poor grammar, incoherent sentences, and lousy acronyms. :-)   I guess it's important to have a 5G article, but I'm not certain this article is a help to know what's happening in the industry or academia.Sanpitch (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. 5G is a marketing term that holds little meaning right now. Supremedemency (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Deleted speculations about IEEE/WiFi based 5G
I removed the following unsourced paragraph, but put some of the mentioned technologies under "See also":

IEEE 802.11n is not a mesh network protocol, but a MIMO technology, which already exsists in 3G and 4G. Mange01 (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Investment
Added a new "Investment" section, given recent mainstream news reports regarding a test facility planned in the UK (see report in video form here – from 09:11: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01nhbzw). I believe there are other investments happening worldwide that could be added, when known. In fact AFAIR didn't South Korea similarly invest in a new facility, according to a (now removed?) recent version of this 5G page? Though I could be wrong. Jimthing (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

First 2G standard
The article states that the first 2G standard came out in 1991. I assume it is referring to GSM. I believe this is incorrect, since Digital AMPS (D-AMPS or TDMA) came out about a year earlier in 1990. ANDROS1337 TALK 02:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well GSM was first commercially deployed in 1992, and D-AMPS in 1993. Mange01 (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

3GPP has started its 5G formalization process
The page indicates that "international 5G development projects have yet to be launched officially." However the 3GPP standards body recently (mid-September 2015) had its first official 5G planning meeting and its member companies have started their efforts in earnest to develop the technology. Here's a link to their press release, with presentations given by a few dozen member companies.

http://www.3gpp.org/news-events/3gpp-news/1734-ran_5g — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.45.109.66 (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jim.henderson (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Useful for an update (20160530)?
(source: http://www.telecomasia.net/content/huawei-validates-key-5g-technologies) Huawei validates key 5G technologies... Dylan Bushell-Embling... May 30, 2016... telecomasia.net

Huawei has announced it has completed the first stage of key 5G technology tests as part of a series of 5G field trials organized by the IMT-2020 5G Promotion Group.

The vendor completed outdoor macro-cell tests in Chengdu, China consisting of a number of key 5G enabling technologies and an integrated 5G air interface.

As part of the trial, Huawei evaluated three foundational technologies - filtered orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (F-OFDM), sparse code multiple access (SCMA) and polar code - the air interface technology.

Results show that F-OFDM was able to improve system throughput by 10%, SCMA was able to increase uplink connections by 300% and downlink system throughput by up to 80%, and polar code provided coding gain of between 0.5dB and 2dB compared to the code used in LTE systems.

Huawei said results of the test demonstrate that the new 5G air interface technology can improve spectral efficiency and meet the ITU-R's diverse service requirements for the standard.

The IMT-2020 5G Promotion Group was launched by the China Academy of Information and Communication Technology to encourage joint efforts to promote 5G field trials and evaluations among the global mobile industry.

Earlier this year the group announced a three-phase 5G trial plan spanning from 2016 to 2018.

-- Jo3sampl (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Current status?
In 2018 Verizon plans to roll out 5G FWA <---   FWA??? definition???

"Is 5G Over-Hyped?

" . . . [speed] depends on what frequency bands are used — 6GHz, 28GHz, 27 GHZ. The higher the frequency the more fibre you need closer to the user in order to deliver those higher speeds. Currently less than 50% of mobile towers are connected to fibre, and the rollout of fibre can't keep up with the rapid deployment of mobile broadband. 5G means more mobile towers so it is unlikely that all of these towers will be linked to fibre in the near future. [etc.]"

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160530_is_5g_over_hyped/

-- Jo3sampl (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Current status is negotiation and planning. Results are a matter of what year. A few users may expect all these wonders to become an everyday experience the same year that the new standard makes its splashy first appearance, or the following year. Most of those will be disappointed. Deployment will take years. Years after first 4G, it isn't everywhere yet, and won't be when 5G starts. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

5g demo from Sprint
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/163045/20160604/sprint-shows-off-5g-with-blazing-fast-speeds-at-copa-américa-centenario.htm

"Sprint Shows Off 5G With Blazing Fast Speeds At Copa América Centenary”

Excerpts:

“The demonstration employed beam stitching, which works by tracking the device in use, selecting the best antenna and sending the signal to a set location.”

"An FCC spectrum auction last month also showed strong implication, further paving the way toward fast and reliable 5G networks. AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile will likely spend billions on 600 MHz spectrum, but Sprint is not interested. Sprint already has plenty of 2.5 GHz spectrum – more than any of its rivals – and when it comes to 5G, it's considered low-frequency spectrum. This means that it should be better at penetrating walls and buildings and traveling farther, thus translating to wider coverage.”

Also — up to 2Gbps during demo; used 73 GHz millimeter wavelength spectrum for demo.

-- Jo3sampl (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

As of June 2016
"5G remains the driver for new product development . ..

"However there is no standard for 5G deployments and no one knows what the final specs will look like. Consensus suggests that 5G will utilize Massive MIMO (multiple input, multiple output) antennas — perhaps dozens (or hundreds) per basestation — each with their own spectrum and modulation scheme. Thus, every RF supplier — no matter how narrow their focus — will claim a slot among the MIMO attachments. "If you can’t find channel bandwidth on the upper spectrum of the millimeter wave bands, consider carrier aggregation at lower frequencies. WiFi and LTE, for example, will likely “co-exist” on the same tower.

"Orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) is one way of putting additional data channels on a given frequency range . . . . OFDM is a modulation technique, which can utilize multiple carriers, within an allocated bandwidth and could enable a 10 Gbits/second data. Each carrier utilize one of the several available digital modulation techniques such as binary phase shift keying (BPSK) or quadrature phase shift keying (QPSK), or quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) with 256 or 1024 constellation points. (802.11ac, for example, uses a 256-point QAM for every data bit transmitted.)"

http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=1329841 accessed 20160707

-- Jo3sampl (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

And:

Power amplifier research with implications for 5G phones

"Purdue research could lead to faster cell phone technology

"[A team of researchers at Purdue created for the first time] power amplifiers (components commonly used in cell phones) using silicon technology that are efficient enough to be suitable for 5G cell phones. . . ."

(http://www.purdueexponent.org/campus/article_91c49b5e-e38f-5be0-8ca1-c16d2ba4f2f2.html)

-- Jo3sampl (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Wavelength controversy?
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/telecom/wireless/real-5g-will-broadcast-above-6-gigahertz-analyst-says

retrieved 20160920

'Stéphane Téral, an analyst at IHS Markit, recently weighed in by criticizing the use of “5G” to describe sub-6 gigahertz developments in a research note.'

'Many [carriers] have set their sights on much shorter millimeter waves that fall between 30 and 300 GHz. There are plenty of frequencies available in the millimeter-wave range, because they’ve been used only for specialized applications such as remote sensing and military radar. But waves at these frequencies can’t travel as far or make it through as many obstacles. . .'

'[5G analyst Anshel] Sag thinks it’s a mistake to rule out anything other than millimeter waves as true 5G. He says 5G New Radio, a wireless standard defined by the global wireless standards group 3GPP, should count as 5G no matter which frequencies it handles.'

-- Jo3sampl (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Standards for 5G still not coming until 2018
AT&T will launch its first 5G wireless service in Indianapolis and Austin later this year, offering theoretical top speeds of 400Mbps or higher, the company said.

http://www.computerworld.com/article/3164831/mobile-wireless/att-to-launch-5g-wireless-this-year-in-indy-and-austin.html 2/2/2017

-- Jo3sampl (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

5G definition and Chinese company ZTE
'Asked about plans in South Korea to launch some form of 5G in 2018, Alex Wang said 5G can be a marketing name, with different operators defining 5G in different ways: “We follow closely the 3GPP standard and believe it’s a more neutral and technically sound definition.”

' “We consider Chinese and Japanese operators as following the more strict 3GPP-based definition, with 5G launches around 2020. Any launch earlier than that is up to the indivdual operator to define, but we don’t think that’s standard compliant 5G.”

'With phase two of China’s national 5G implementation already underway, ZTE is working closely with China Mobile on different aspects of the operator’s 5G trials, including radio and core networks, and the interworking of network features.'

(https://www.mobileworldlive.com/featured-content/home-banner/zte-steps-up-role-in-5g-global-standards-process/)

-- Jo3sampl (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified in units
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 5G. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://cims.clayton.edu/sakhtar/EncyclopediaPaper.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303230738/http://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/special-reports/nyu-wireless-rappaport-envisions-5g-millimeter-wave-future to http://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/special-reports/nyu-wireless-rappaport-envisions-5g-millimeter-wave-future

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Real-world tests
As 5G is approaching to us, I think it would be beneficial for us to know the practical speed (not written in the book) and bandwidth for average users. I updated some simulation results and comparison table to 3G and 4G. Please update further actual test results and references to this article when it's possible. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Complete update and rewrite
The article was mostly unchanged since 2016 in a very fast moving field. Many references were to 2011 and 2013. Rewrote entire article, removing many out of date datapoints, obvious pr, and errors. Actual deployments replaced trials. Shortened some sections with extraneous material. (I'm a tech reporter covering this field and have written over 50 articles. That doesn't mean I got everything right. Improvements welcome.) I made a major change/update to paragraph 2, which said 5G was millimeter wave only. Since then, Massive MIMO and low band 5G have been accepted by most as part of 5G. There's no formal definition so I included all 3 saying "some consider." At the MWC this week, it appeared 3/4ths of the announced 5G plans were low band, which had been left out. Is that the right solution? The article would be improved with more technical information and more links to recently published books/articles. Dave Burstein daveb@dslprime.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveburstein (talk • contribs) 09:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. It needs a comparison table of: 0G, 1G, 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.126.206.36 (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Daveburstein (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC) I corrected major confusion in the article. After more than a year of dispute, the term 5G has generally been accepted to include any system utilizing 3GPP New Radio. Hundreds of regulator statements, news reports, and much of this article use the "new definition." (Which I think is highly misleading but has become common usage.) That means much of "5G" does not meet the ITU IMT-2020 standard of 20 gigabits, which the article was claiming. It's 70% to 90% slower. Made several changes to make clear what was IMT-2020 (20 gigabits, mostly microwave) and which was not (everything below 6 GHz.) If anyone sees it differently, please email me daveb@dslprime.com and I will send more data to you. Daveburstein (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC) Removed "technology" section except New Radio. All listed were developed for 4G before 5G. Further changes necessary in a fast-moving field.


 * Thank you for your time and efforts, 5G article is much more valuable information than the previous version. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Goodtiming8871
Hi - I see you have edits that are clearly very important to you. They contain a number of technical inaccuracies. I don't personally see how you will get them to a state where they are accurate. Not quite sure what the Wikipedia rules are for things like this, but I'm sure everyone's preference is that people not make earnest but inaccurate contributions. Hawerchuk (talk) 05:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Hawerchuk
Hi, as you are well aware of it, the 3G and 4G mobile are now standard for the world; the 5G mobile could affect most of the people in the world shortly within a few years(examples, the year 2020-2021). It would be crucial not for few people but the significant population. As the standard of 5G is not yet fixed, and still one of the primary agenda, it would be impossible to write the concrete result of the capabilities of 5G technology. However, it would be possible to predict the practical outcomes based on the real-world test by the 5G professionals. Please update the article or provide the feedback on talk page based on further references. We would be able to achieve better understanding what could be the realistic 5G standard. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't quite know what you're saying. But let me give you an example of what I mean from your text:

"The technology of small cell was already utilised to 3G and 4G mobile radio technology. However, small cell in 5G is now the crucial part of achieving several gigabits per second Bandwidth and low latency. It is now indispensable to use the small cell when you deploy high bandwidth 5G fixed wireless service because of characteries of the new 5G mobile band which is Millimeter wave frequencies(24-86GHz)."

-> "several gigabits per second Bandwidth" -> "gigabits per second" is throughput; Bandwidth in the context of 5G is measured in MHz -> "indispensable...when you deploy high bandwidth 5G fixed wireless service" -> 5G needs small cells to enable much more than mmWave fixed wireless

"It is one of the primary technology for 5G networks; it will transmit data through targeted beams and advanced signal processing that could speed up data rates and boost bandwidth using massive MIMO antennas, it is a technique that sends the radio signals intensively to the places where many data are actually needed."

-> "it will transmit data...that could...boost bandwidth" -> again, there's no notion of beamforming increasing bandwidth, you're mixing it up with throughput -> "it is a technique that sends the radio signals intensively to the places where...actually needed" -> this is not a technically-accurate description of beamforming -> "it will transmit data through...advanced signal processing" -> this is not an action that the transmission of data can take

I don't really see the point of re-inserting erroneous text like this. Hawerchuk (talk) 05:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Concerning (Hawerchuk)'s comment about 5G technology,

I believe that it's highly beneficial for us to articulate the definition of the 5G technology area. Let me add the reference of the examples that I see what is correct: 1) (Hawerchuk) Bandwidth in the context of 5G is measured in MHz  -> (Goodtiming88781) the function of Millimeter-wave bands: it can deliver greater capacity of the data comparing the Centimeter waves,  but the bandwidth should not be measured with MHz but  "bits per second (bps)".   2) (Hawerchuk) again, there's no notion of beamforming increasing bandwidth, you're mixing it up with throughput (Goodtiming88781), The reference on ieee.org exaplined clearly that Beamforming(= targeted beams) boost bandwidth, and as per the reference(1) above network throughput is directly linked with bandwidth on the network. 3) (Hawerchuk) this is not a technically-accurate description of beamforming (Goodtiming88781), Please see the IEEE reference 2)above and the description below, it also accurately described the meaning of beamforming. "For millimeter waves, beamforming can help by focusing a signal in a concentrated beam that points only in the direction of a user, rather than broadcasting in many directions at once." Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "MHz" : it is measurement unit for the frequencies not for Bandwidth.

"smart medicine with connected cars"
Hi Goodtiming8871. What is the relationship between connected cars and smart medicine? Hawerchuk (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC) It was a typo. I fixed it. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Beamforming
The text in the beamforming section was copied verbatim from the reference cited in that section, so I removed it. Hawerchuk (talk) 06:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC) I don't think the summary of the long contents of reference: it is not the copy of the material. I will recover it with additional clarification. If you think it is an exact copy of the reference, please paste the evidence of contents here. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 06:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Tagged article
1) "The proposed 5G applications": the same information is in the next section. If someone is trying to say something different, clarification is required.

2) "Small Cell": Clarification required. I think I understand what the text is trying to say, but it's not correct (small cell is key to 5G, not just for mmWave)

3) "Network Bandwidth and Deployments": There are numerous technical inaccuracies, there's irrelevant info, and some of this section contradicts some of the other sections tagged above for clarification.

Hawerchuk (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC) Please note that mmWave must use a small cell, however a small cell is not an essential part of centimetre wave, and a centimetre wave is also used in a 4G network. if you think that a small cell is an essential part of the centimetre wave in 5G, Please place the proper references on here if possible. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Clarifying definitions and speed estimates
Daveburstein (talk) 03:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC) Thanks Hawerchuk and others for improving this page. There is enormous confusion about the definition of "5G," which remains under dispute amid changes. Originally, "5G" was defined as 20 Gbps downloads, which in practice meant millimetre wave only. Those building and deploying in lower bands, from 600 MHz to 6 GHz, wanted to call their equipment 5G and persuaded the important 3GPP standards committee to include in "5G" what more closely resembled 4G than millimetre wave. (It's really 4G with a software tweak, New Radio, and only slightly faster. Opinion) Almost all the companies are delighted to apply the much-hyped term "5G" to their slower and less expensive mid-band deployments. That seems to be becoming generally accepted, including in policy work at the EU & FCC. That means some 5G will actually be slower than some 4G, which has some features - including LAA - that have not yet been implemented in 5G. There's no standard of what's right or wrong here, but the changes have led to very frequent errors. The result is that many ordinarily reliable sources get this wrong. If low & band are included in 5G, there are only modest performance improvements. (I preferred the older definition, but common usage seems now to accept the inclusion of low and mid-band.) Many assume that "5G" is much faster and has much lower latency. That's not true except for millimetre wave 5G, which will be a minority of deployments for the next five years. (Unproven but likely true.) I've reported broadband since 1999 and am working on a book, Gigabit Wireless. My sources include dozens of authorities in the field. That doesn't mean I will be right about everything, of course. But if you think my changes are in error, please email me daveb@dslprime.com and I'll be happy to point you to primary sources. Dave Burstein


 * Hi Daveburstein. Thanks for updating, appreciate all of the edits. 5G is so nebulous, I think it may take us a few more iterations to get things clean. e.g. "Initially, the term was defined by the ITU IMT-2020 standard, which required a theoretical peak download capacity of 20 gigabits." -> This is for eMBB, but I don't think ITU required 20 Gbps for URLLC and MMTC.

Hawerchuk (talk) 05:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Can we have the lead section drafted in such a way that an uninitiated reader could make out what 5G is? Lengthy discussion on wawelengths, chipsets, competing standards does not help. Look at 3G for an example of good lead section. — kashmīrī  TALK  08:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Daveburstein (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC) Kashmiri and Hawerchuk I made some changes as you suggested. Your comments are sensible but unfortunately the problem is that the world doesn't agree on the definition of 5G. Moved down and rewrote the section on predicted speeds. I added three more citations. The Qualcomm model is consistent with many other datapoints including Verizon's data on millimetre wave and is well documented. I put at the top this is uncertain until we have more results from the field. With the caveat, I believe it right to leave it in because it provides a well-resourced, less technical way to understand what is coming.

This is more than semantics; the article in earlier drafts had major errors due to the confusion. Most "5G" is not much better. (Millimetre wave is much faster but based on telco announcements will only be a minor part.)

Under the newer definition, much - probably the strong majority for five years - of "5G" will not be much faster than "4G" with the same number of antennas and spectrum. That has important implications for policy, where lobbyists are demanding major changes to "incent 5G."

Here's what I came up with. Improvements welcome. Dave daveb@dslprime.com


 * I like kashmīrī's suggestion. We may as well just copy the text from 3G and use it to describe how 5G is an upgrade on 4G.

Hawerchuk (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The combination of the two frequencies below; that is 5G network as per the proposed 5G standard. Frequency range 1 (< 6 GHz) - for coverage Frequency range 2 (24–86 GHz) for speed by Small cell I believe that we can say the maximum speed of 5G via millimetre waves only which is the much higher performance of the current 4G. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Network bandwidth and deployments
The references for this section do not meet WP:RS. I have removed the section and invite editors to discuss changes at talk before re-adding them to the article.
 * --Hawerchuk (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned, this section does not meet WP:RS. Some examples:


 * a) "In 2016, Federal Communications Commission(FCC) approves the usage of the new Extremely high frequency (EHF) frequencies range (in another word; Millimeter wave) in next-gen 5G technologies. As the EHF frequencies range is finally accessible on the mobile network, there is an opportunity of the new bandwidth with the requirement of small cell infrastructure because of propagation characteristics of shortwave(example: Millimeter wave). [59]"


 * While reference [59] does indeed talk about mmWave spectrum allocations by the FCC, it's not clear what is meant by "opportunity of the new bandwidth", nor does the reference to shortwave (up to 2 MHz) make any sense in the context of mmWave (up to 86 *GHz*). Also, nobody in this industry refers to these bands as EHF - if someone wants to use that term, they should find references from relevant sources.


 * b) "IMT-2020 systems demonstrated to June 2018 used millimetre wave. Systems using bands below 6 GHz have been estimated to reach 4 gigabits per second via 64 QAM modulation, not the 20 gigabits of IMT2020. However, it is the peak network bandwidth simulation with a 64 QAM modulation between 28 and 39 GHz(millimetre wave) that the approximated value was calculated at. [60]"


 * First, it's not true that demo systems used only mmWave; in the prior section of this article, there are a list of trials and launches in the US that include several sub-6 GHz launches. Second, nobody is claiming 4Gbps for bands below 6 GHz; in fact, reference [60] talks about 4Gbps for mmWave. Third, the mention of 64-QAM misunderstands the article - the interviewee is talking about how 64-QAM is used at mmWave frequencies vs 256-QAM for sub-6 GHz, and that it's a hindrance to getting high throughput. Fourth, the article makes no mention of simulations - it's entirely focused around real-world tests.


 * c) "The real-world 5G network test results from Qualcomm's the Frankfurt simulation are as follows. In a mobile 5G network, 90% of users could use an average speed of 100 Mbps. In the San Francisco simulation, 5G users were able to use 1.4 Gbps of speed at 5G mmWave coverage.[61] Ericsson and NTT DoCoMo also tested the practical 5G network speed.[62]"


 * For reference [61], the editor is taking a simulation and calling it "real-world 5G network test results"; if the editor wanted to write a section on the potential capacity of 5G networks, this would be one point they could make, but here it ends up just being PR for the company trying to sell the technology. The mention of reference [62] is completely superfluous - it doesn't matter than Ericsson and NTT DoCoMo tested a network (there is a section above on vendors and network launches) - what did they find?


 * d) "When the mobile industry wants to deploy the 5G infrastructure, the Millimeter waves of 5G frequencies (e.g, 15-86 GHz band)[63] should be considered, As it requires the 1 to 10 mm waves compared to the 3G or 4G frequencies [64](e.g: 850 MHz,1.8 GHz,2.1 GHz,2.3 GHz, and 2.6 GHz) which are tens of centimetres in length.[65]"


 * This is unclear. There is plenty of discussion about mmWave earlier in the article, not sure why it is mentioned here again. Ref [64] and [65] do not say what the words preceding them say.


 * e) "The 5G network cellular tower should be designed for much smaller cells, compared to the current 3G/4G base station tower. In the case of the 3G/4G network cellular tower, it is technically possible to cover up to 50km-150km by adjusting the output power [66] however the fixed wireless 5G cell stations should ideally be designed to cover distances of 250-300 m due to technical limitations.[67]"


 * This depends on whether we are talking about sub-6 GHz 5G (the bulk of deployments) or mmWave 5G. There is no reason to design for smaller cells if you are using the same bands as 3G/4G, and there are plenty of references the editor could have found that talk about co-locating 4G and 5G towers for this reason. Ref [67] does not refer to 200-300m cell size, but it does refer to some experiments Samsung is doing - this is not guidance for network deployments as a whole.


 * Every sentence in this section has similar problems - technical inaccuracies, conflating sub-6 GHz and mmWave, misinterpretation of references, insertion of references that don't say what's claimed in the section. The editor is clearly attached to the section but needs to re-write for relevance and clarity.
 * --Hawerchuk (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hawerchuk, I agree text should be supported by any reference given and written clearly. However, this section does not appear to be about health effects, so WP:RS, and not WP:MEDRS, should suffice. --papageno (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * My bad. Changed to RS.
 * --Hawerchuk (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Kleuske As papageno notes, I should have deleted the text due to WP:RS, not WP:MEDRS. That was my bad. I changed to WP:RS. My edit should not have been reverted. If you believe the text meets WP:RS, please discuss it on the talk page.
 * --Hawerchuk (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * At the face of it, sourced content was deleted. You claim the sources are not WP:RS, so I'd like to know what sources you object to and what your objections are. Kleuske (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I outlined issues the first five sentences above; there are issues with every other sentence, but it's incumbent on the editor who added them to fix them. Certainly item (c) is WP:RS. I don't think the expectation is that I explain the flaw in each sentence and *also* classify every single flawed sentence based on its specific flaw. If you can tell me the correct classification for "You can't just write a bunch of random words and then add a reference that does not match what you wrote", I will use that instead.
 * --Hawerchuk (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

However the matter should be classified properly, I believe Hawerchuk has identified legitimate problems with the proposed text, problems that should be cleared up before it is added to the article. Perhaps User:Goodtiming8871 would like to create a sandbox section at his/her talk page where interested editors could help to improve and refine the text first, before submitting it here for approval for inclusion? It would be great to harness the interest that User Goodtiming8871 clearly has for the subject. --papageno (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Hawerchuk' comment; a) "In 2016, Federal Communications Commission(FCC) approves the usage of the new Extremely high frequency (EHF) frequencies range (in another word; Millimeter wave) in next-gen 5G technologies. As the EHF frequencies range is finally accessible on the mobile network, there is an opportunity of the new bandwidth with the requirement of small cell infrastructure because of propagation characteristics of shortwave(example: Millimeter wave). [59]" While reference [59] does indeed talk about mmWave spectrum allocations by the FCC, it's not clear what is meant by "opportunity of the new bandwidth", nor does the reference to shortwave (up to 2 MHz) make any sense in the context of mmWave (up to 86 *GHz*). Also, nobody in this industry refers to these bands as EHF - if someone wants to use that term, they should find references from relevant sources.
 * Hi Hawerchuk, regarding the technical descriptions, I believe that the content just need to be refined instead of removal as per the example reasons below- part (a)
 * The issues of points from User:Hawerchuk
 * regarding reference [59]

1) [59] does specify mmWave spectrum allocations by the FCC, it is clear that "opportunity of the new bandwidth": example 20 Gbps bandwidth  by  mmWave 2) Professional of mobile industry refers to these band ( 30GHz- 86 GHz) are EHF; it is also known as  mmWave. Please see EHF 3) EHF = millimetre wave;   "Hawerchuk" believes that  if someone wants to use that term, they should find references from relevant sources --> (3) above, It is a just fundamental technical term, I don't believe it is probable for unpaid Wikipedia editor could add 10 references to every single line  in the Wikipedia article. I believe that more than about 99.999%  Professional in the mobile industry would understand that millimetre wave is the another terminology of EHF. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * "opportunity of the new bandwidth" -> As I noted earlier, you are using the term "bandwidth" incorrectly. I initially thought you meant that the FCC was opening up new "spectrum" (which you referred to as "bandwidth".) But with your statement in the talk section, someone might guess that you mean "throughput" (the error I was pointing out before.) I would suggest you take papageno up on the sandbox idea. You'll be able to get feedback to help clarify your technical content and the text itself.

Hawerchuk (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As for EHF, the Wikipedia entry immediately switches to mmWave, which is the industry terminology. If you look at the corporate websites for Qualcomm, Intel, Ericsson and Nokia, you will not find one web page related to 5G that uses the term EHF. I don't see how you can claim it is a fundamental technical term if the bulk of the patent holders in the field don't use it at all.

Hawerchuk (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

EHF can be redirected from MmWave, it means that it is precisely the same meaning: just a fundamental technical term. It will be an unreasonable claim that if someone says MmWave is a different meaning of  Extremely high frequency because the corporate websites (example: Qualcomm) did not use the term of  "Extremely high frequency" on their website. Please place a reliable reference in this place if you believe EHF is different terminology to MmWave. From my understanding, MmWave would be a popular terminology in the mobile industry, but we can not say EHF does not match with MmWave. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Qualcomm.com: 230 results for "mmWave"; 2 results for "EHF" Intel.com: 258 results for "mmWave"; 0 results for "EHF" as used in this context (2 results for a different meaning) Nokia.com: 130 results for "mmWave"; 0 results for "EHF" Ericsson.com: 153 results for "mmWave"; 0 results for "EHF" as used in this context (2 results for a different meaning)
 * Not sure what more you want. If they were equivalent terms, people would use them equivalently.

Hawerchuk (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe EHF is different terminology to MmWave regarding your examples above. that is just example of "popular usage" of terminology. Would you please be able to write a specific definition associated with the reference concerning: your claim: "EHF is different terminology to MmWave" otherwise please let other professional write their opinion. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Summary of Small cell and Beamforming
The summary of the two parts was removed continuously by the user: Hawerchuk, but he did not leave any proper reason or reference. ( Hawerchuk edits appear to be disruptive as the contents could be clarified or improved by other professional users in the future.) I would like to get consensus with other users about the requirement of the summary of the two topics below instead of linking to several pages of information which might be too much data to read for general users.

Small cell Main article: Small cell The technology of small cell was already utilised to 3G and 4G mobile radio technology. However, small cell in 5G is now the crucial part of achieving several gigabits per second Bandwidth and low latency. It is now indispensable to use the small cell when you deploy high bandwidth 5G fixed wireless service because of characteries of the new 5G mobile band which is Millimeter wave frequencies(24-86GHz). The ITU released the new mobile Radio frequencies on the World Radio-communications Conference which is the range of Extremely high frequency. Technically, Millimeter-wave spectrum(mmWave) has the functionality that "mmWave (Extremely high frequency)’ could be able to handle breakneck 5G speeds."

Beamforming Main article: Beamforming It is one of the primary technologies for 5G networks; it will transmit data through targeted beams and advanced signal processing that could speed up data rates and boost bandwidth using massive MIMO antennas. It is a technique that sends the radio signals intensively to the places where lots of data is actually needed.

Goodtiming8871 (talk) 04:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Goodtiming8871, I have given you feedback on how to improve almost every sentence you've written; that is hardly "disruptive". However, since you're asking, I will provide you with feedback on these sections as well:

"However, small cell in 5G is now the crucial part of achieving several gigabits per second Bandwidth and low latency. It is now indispensable to use the small cell when you deploy high bandwidth 5G fixed wireless service because of characteries of the new 5G mobile band which is Millimeter wave frequencies(24-86GHz)."


 * 1) As I already explained above, "Bandwidth" is not the correct term for what you are describing. The term is Throughput. 2) IMT-2020 eMBB targets' multi-Gbps throughput but does not target low latency. Low-latency (but not high throughput) is proposed for IoT and self-driving cars. 3) The second sentence says the same thing as the first ("crucial" vs "indispensable"). 4) You make reference to "characteristics" of "the new 5G mobile band" - what are they? Why do they make small cells indispensable? 5) You mention "fixed wireless" and "mobile band", which will confuse people - fixed and mobile are antonyms.

"Technically, Millimeter-wave spectrum(mmWave) has the functionality that "mmWave (Extremely high frequency)’ could be able to handle breakneck 5G speeds.""


 * 1) This doesn't make sense. Why does mmWave have any particular functionality that enables high speeds? You get speed by allocating more spectrum, not by using any specific chunk of spectrum. 2) You are using EHF here again, which as I noted, is not a term used in this industry. 3) We are talking about highly quantitative specifications - it does not make sense to use a nebulous term like "breakneck".

"It is one of the primary technologies for 5G networks; it will transmit data through targeted beams and advanced signal processing that could speed up data rates and boost bandwidth using massive MIMO antennas."


 * 1) Data can't be transmitted through "advanced signal processing". 2) Beamforming cannot boost "bandwidth". As I noted several times, you are conflating Throughput with "bandwidth". 3) There is no dependency on massive MIMO. Beamforming delivers value independently.

"It is a technique that sends the radio signals intensively to the places where lots of data is actually needed."


 * This is not a clear description of beamforming. See beamforming for a better (but not great) description of the technology.

Hawerchuk (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Hawerchuk, Please restrain to write your own idea without proper reference and let other professionals describe their opinion as the consensus of talk in this section might require about several people's views with reference not a discussion between two people. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * You have misinterpreted a lot of details in the articles you cite, and in good faith, I have explained these details to you. I am addressing your references; there are no additional references to provide. I don't think your response is warranted.

Hawerchuk (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Although you said a lot of details were misinterpreted, it could also be your misunderstanding about several technologies. As one example of technologies: bandwidth, let me know whether IEEE Spectrum Staff: Amy Nordrum, Kristen Clark accept your advice whether they made a crucial mistake of using the wrong terminology on their IEEE public press release. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Hawerchuk (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I explained this above. One person wrote the article, somebody else wrote the headline, and that person misused a word. Just because one person made a mistake, it doesn't mean we propagate it into this article. Please, let's move on.

IMT-2020 & 3PPP
Daveburstein (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC) Dave Burstein Major change: Pointed out IMT-2020 & 3PPP have different definitions. IMT-2020 goes to 20 Gbps, 3GPP to 2 or 4. Removed 200-300 meter cell size because Verizon is getting more. Many small updates and language fixes. Hypesters are implying that "5G" is 20 gigabits in deployments at less than 6 GHz. That's just an error. 20 gigabits is possible at millimeter frequencies like 28 GHz. That's the IMT standard. Nothing more than 4 gigabits has been demonstrated below 6 GHz frequencies, which are included in the 3GPP definition. Article confused them. Shortened stuff, took out unsourced claims that were dubious, etc. More work needed.

I think the intro to the article is confusing now. Do you want to re-write it? Hawerchuk (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * As you know, 5G-standardisation is on it's way so we are able to see the current version of 5G-standardisation on the news and Wikipedia. I believe that we need to wait and see the final version later.

There is so much confusion in the article. 3GPP doesn't define standards, it develops specifications: https://www.qualcomm.com/news/onq/2017/08/02/understanding-3gpp-starting-basics That Verge reference at the industry standards group 3GPP has included any system using NR (New Radio) software does not support the claim.

the term was defined by the ITU IMT-2020 standard, which required a theoretical peak download capacity of 20 gigabits required for who/what? For candidate radio interfaces like NR. There is no 5G requirements for networks. There is only requirements for radio interfaces. See ITU document: https://www.itu.int/md/R15-SG05-C-0040/en : These requirements are not intended to restrict the full range of capabilities or performance that candidate RITs/SRITs for IMT-2020 might achieve, nor are they intended to describe how the RITs/SRITs might perform in actual deployments under operating conditions that could be different from those presented in other ITU-R Recommendations and Reports on IMT-2020.

It is actually ITU that defines a system to be 5G if it just uses a 5G radio interface like NR: As defined in Resolution ITU-R 56-2, International Mobile Telecommunications-2020 (IMT-2020) systems are mobile systems that include new radio interface(s) which support the new capabilities of systems beyond IMT-2000 and IMT-Advanced. Sbsail (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Goodtiming8871 (talk) 04:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Article about dangers of 5G
I looked this article up having come across some stuff on the Internet warning about the dangers of 5G. I found the article completely incomprehensible. (I don't have a physics background, though I know a fair bit about the philosophy of science and I've read a lot of popular science.) There are many technical terms even in the lead that don't have relevant links. I accept that with such a technical subject some level of incomprehensibility for the layperson may be inevitable. However, I do think there could be a paragraph or two, if only in the introduction, setting out in plain language what the article is about. I also couldn't find anything on the supposed dangers of 5G, which ought to be included or at least linked to. If anyone who knows the subject well enough feels up to doing this, that would be great. Thanks :-)Be-nice:-) (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Be-nice:-),
 * "Dangers of 5G" It is quite a relevant topic for us to handle, let me add the subject and summary of this part with linking to the related topic. Thank you for your suggestion. Actually, I was concerning this issues more than three months after watching the numerous research papers and evidence of the problem of 5G on the internet. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, Please refer to the new subject: dangers of 5G and add more references as there is enough information on the internet. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 06:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I have removed this section. The references for this section fall short of WP:MEDRS. I invite all editors to discuss any changes here at Talk before adding them to the article (yet again). --papageno (talk) 05:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding EMI and human health, I realised that it requires the specific rule to WP:MEDRS (medical related term), we would need to discuss more references for EMI and Human health.    Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, me again :-) I understand there is some issue re the status of whatever negative information on 5G is out there. However, I'm more interested in actually getting the info than in modifying the article in one direction or another. I can make my own decision re the trustworthiness, or otherwise, of the info. So if someone could kindly direct me to the pre-deletion version so I can follow up the sources without stepping on anyone's toes, that would be great. I presume its in the archive somewhere, so it should be just a question of finding it. Thanks!Be-nice:-) (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

What might be worth mentioning in that the International Society of Doctors for the Environment has called for standstill of the roll out in the respect of the precautionary principle. That report has about 50 references in the scientific literature to biological effects and 17 of those are specific to MMW.

"'Furthermore, specific preliminary evidence showed the exposure to frequencies over 30GHz could alter gene expression(16,36,37,38,39), increase the temperature of the skin(40), stimulate cell proliferation(41,42,43), alter the functions of cell membrane (44,45)and neuro-muscular systems (46,47,48,49,50,51,52), and are able to modulate the synthesis of proteins involved in inflammatory and immunologic processes (53), with possible systemic effects.'"


 * 36. Le Quement C, Nicolaz CN, Habauzit D, Zhadobov M, Sauleau R, Le Drean Y. Impact of 60-GHz millimeter waves and corresponding heat effect on endoplasmic reticulum stress sensor gene expression. Bioelectromagnetics 2014; 35(6): 444-51.
 * 37. Soubere Mahamoud Y, Aite M, Martin C, et al. Additive Effects of Millimeter Waves and 2-Deoxyglucose Co-Exposure on the Human Keratinocyte Transcriptome. PloS one 2016; 11(8): e0160810.
 * 38. Le Quement C, Nicolas Nicolaz C, Zhadobov M, et al. Whole-genome expression analysis in primary human keratinocyte cell cultures exposed to 60 GHz radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 2012; 33(2): 147-58.
 * 39. Millenbaugh NJ, Roth C, Sypniewska R, et al. Gene expression changes in the skin of rats induced by prolonged 35 GHz millimeter-wave exposure. Radiation research 2008; 169(3): 288-300.
 * 40. Zhadobov M, Alekseev SI, Le Drean Y, Sauleau R, Fesenko EE. Millimeter waves as a source of selective heating of skin. Bioelectromagnetics 2015; 36(6): 464-75.
 * 41. Szabo I, Rojavin MA, Rogers TJ, Ziskin MC. Reactions of keratinocytes to in vitro millimeter wave exposure. Bioelectromagnetics 2001; 22(5): 358-64.
 * 42. Li X, Liu C, Liang W, et al. Millimeter wave promotes the synthesis of extracellular matrix and the proliferation of chondrocyte by regulating the voltage-gated K+ channel. Journal of bone and mineral metabolism 2014; 32(4): 367-77.
 * 43. Li X, Du M, Liu X, et al. Millimeter wave treatment promotes chondrocyte proliferation by upregulating the expression of cyclin-dependent kinase 2 and cyclin A. International journal of molecular medicine 2010; 26 (1): 77-84.
 * 44. Cosentino K, Beneduci A, Ramundo - Orlando A, Chidichimo G. The influence of millimeter waves on the physical properties of large and giant unilamellar vesicles. Journal of biological physics 2013; 39(3): 395-410.
 * 45. Di Donato L, Cataldo M, Stano P, Massa R, Ramundo-Orlando A. Permeability changes of cationic liposomes loaded with carbonic anhydrase induced by millimeter waves radiation. Radiation research 2012; 178(5): 437-46.
 * 46. Gordon ZV, Lobanova EA, Kitsovskaia IA, Tolgskaia MS. [Study of the biological effect of electromagnetic waves of millimeter range]. Biulleten' eksperimental'noi biologii i meditsiny 1969; 68(7): 37-9.
 * 47. Alekseev SI, Ziskin MC, Kochetkova NV, Bolshakov MA. Millimeter waves thermally alter the firing rate of the Lymnaea pacemaker neuron. Bioelectromagnetics 1997; 18(2): 89-98.
 * 48. Pakhomov AG, Prol HK, Mathur SP, Akyel Y, Campbell CB. Search for frequency-specific effects of millimeter-wave radiation on isolated nerve function. Bioelectromagnetics 1997; 18(4): 324-34.
 * 49. Khramov RN, Sosunov EA, Koltun SV, Ilyasova EN, Lednev VV. Millimeter-wave effects on electric activity of crayfish stretch receptors. Bioelectromagnetics 1991; 12(4): 203-14.
 * 50. Alekseev SI, Gordiienko OV, Radzievsky AA, Ziskin MC. Millimeter wave effects on electrical responses of the sural nerve in vivo. Bioelectromagnetics 2010; 31(3): 180-90.
 * 51. Pikov V, Arakaki X, Harrington M, Fraser SE, Siegel PH. Modulation of neuronal activity and plasma membrane properties with low-power millimeter waves in organotypic cortical slices. Journal of neural engineering 2010; 7(4): 045003.
 * 52. Shapiro MG, Priest MF, Siegel PH, Bezanilla F. Thermal mechanisms of millimeter wave stimulation of excitable cells. Biophysical journal 2013; 104(12): 2622-8.
 * 53. Sypniewska RK, Millenbaugh NJ, Kiel JL, et al. Protein changes in macrophages induced by plasma from rats exposed to 35 GHz millimeter waves. Bioelectromagnetics 2010; 31(8): 656-63

There is also press coverage of this although is the Daily Mail and local news in Cornwall which is going to be one of the first rollout areas.

While I'm skeptical of the health benefits I think we should at least document that some major orginisations have protested. --Salix alba (talk): 13:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Who
Who is the developer? The name BCI is deadlinked. The problem with no named developer, is that there is no accountability. Does 5G require replacing the 4G network? Does 5G require the public to throw away working 4G phones? Is it that 4G phones present industry with a problem in that they are durable, and industry wants to keep selling phones? -Inowen (nlfte) 03:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The "BCI" thing seems to be unrelated.C933103 (talk) 06:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

5G cellphone’s location privacy broken before it’s even implemented
Hi all

I don't understand enough about the subject to integrate this information, but this seems important, could someone take a look?


 * https://hackaday.com/2018/12/07/5g-cellphones-location-privacy-broken-before-its-even-implemented/

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * John, to me it looks like another superclever theory to be able to break into a mobile conversation, again via a fake intermediate station (Imsi catcher), but not by identifying the mobile phone by its stable Imsi-Identity but by (guessing) dynamic sequence numbers. That’s certainly more difficult than with current standards, and if it really can be done remains to be prooved – I think. To go to all that effort just to find out where a mobile is is highly improbable, tedious and time consuming. Intellectual games! (“If you’ve lost your 5G better buy a new one” :–) – Fritz Jörn (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * From the article description, the possible problem mentioned by the article doesn't seems to be specific to 5G and is also applicable to other generations of mobile technology. So it should be mentioned in other article that cover the topic directly instead of this article that's only indirectly related to it because that technology is also used here. C933103 (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Opposition
The refferences in this section all lead to conspiracy sites and articles based on them. There is one link to a petition signed by 180 fringe (as far as I can tell) scientists. Manufacturversy? i am particularly concerned about the Lucid dreamer youtube channel being used as a source - this guy has a legit psychiatric disorder Benvenuto (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Lots of them though. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Not in cited source
The information in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=5G&diff=891244641&oldid=891243558 is not in the cited source. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Daveburstein (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC) The actual deployment of tens of thousands of cells by Verizon, SKT, Korea Telecom and LG+ has now given us data from the field from about a dozen independent testers, mostly journalists. I put the actual data and removed a great deal of previous speculation. I also removed a great deal of now outdated and less important matter. I removed the "should be reviewed by an expert." I'm sure I have some errors here but I have written dozens of articles about 5G and am working on a book. Thank you to anyone who fixes my mistakes. The comment above that the description at the beginning is unclear is sensible. Unfortunately, there are many different opinions about the proper description, including the note above about ITU vs 3GPP. I eliminated challenged definitions here and simply called it "advanced wireless." While many have further opinions, that's as far as consensus goes for now. That the city of Brussels has stopped 5G trials because of fears about radiation is an objective datapoint from a responsible entity. I don't think Brussels is right based on the evidence I've seen, but some reputable professionals including Harvard Professor Susan Crawford have doubts. It is not the job of Wikipedia to make a judgment when responsible parties hold conflicting views. The article, for now, has the Brussels decisions as well as links to the (more popular) opposite view. Improvements of course welcome. If anyone wants to review the evidence at lenght, I suggest they create a separate article and link to it. I've written about 200 pages on 5G so have a great deal of data. If anyone has questions about this Wikipedia article, my email is daveb@dslprime.com and much of my work is at wirelessone.news. Daveburstein (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC) replaced "supercedes" 4G with neutral term "follows." 4G will be important for many years 2025. Reworded claim that 3GPP is a definitive definition, pending agreement with ITU. (India has said they may block 3GPP at the ITU.) Wikipedia should stay neutral while the ITU (part of the U.N) and 3GPP are not in agreemnt. 3GPP is an industry association with essentially no direct or indirect public representation. Almost all countries, many companies, and civil society groups are represented in ITU. The ITU vs 3GPP is an active issue in Internet Governance, so I wanted to be precise.

Needs explanation understandable by general readers
This jargon-ridden, poorly organized, fragmented article will be practically incomprehensible to general readers who are not familiar with cellular technology. It desperately needs a plain language introduction. For those of you who are concerned about the myths, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theories growing up around 5G, I'd suggest that one reason non-technical people believe these myths is a lack of accessible explanations of the technology. A Wikipedia article that actually explains this new technology in an understandable, human-friendly way might help demystify it. --ChetvornoTALK 19:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be easier to achieve what you proposed if most websites stop advertising 5G as if some sort of magic that would overturn the life of every human being on the planet and revolutionalize every single industry on earth, but that seems to be asking too much for any non-technical-oriented sites, and that's probably one of the reason why the article is mostly focusing on those deeply technical aspects. It would be nice if someone can introduce the subject in a better way, at the very least one can split all the more technical aspects into more technical sub-articles, but that seems to be out of my capabilities. C933103 (talk) 05:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with you about the tech websites; most of them get their income from the advertising and promotional budget of giant telecom firms and are captive cheerleaders for the industry. In particular, there seems to be little discussion of the elephant in the room: unequal access to this technology.  Deployment seems to be aimed at cities.  If left to the telecoms I don't see how it will ever be extended to rural areas, which already desperately need broadband service, so 5G will just exacerbate the "digital divide". --ChetvornoTALK 07:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Added an overview section, written in what I hope is less technical language. --ChetvornoTALK 07:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow. Someone has managed to remove from the overview I wrote the information ordinary readers would most want to know: 5G's capabilities and how they differ from previous cellular networks.  Now the article is practically content-free for general readers.  The jargon-laden introduction, in addition to omitting any kind of description of 5G, even manages to conceal the fact that it is a cellular technology: "5G is a commonly used term for certain advanced wireless systems." Talk about your WP:VAGUELEAD.  Seriously, folks, if you had a non-technically-educated friend who wanted to know what 5G was, would you send them to this article?  --ChetvornoTALK 01:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Definition of Bandwidth
Ok, I think I see the issue now:

1. For the IEEE article, the person who wrote the title is not the same person who wrote the article. This is not uncommon. Unfortunately, the person who wrote the title made a mistake in the way they used the term 'bandwidth'. Note that 'bandwidth' does not appear in the article itself.

2. For the other page, that is a different industry, which uses a different definition of bandwidth. In cellular, bandwidth refers to the quantity of frequency allocated to the user; throughput refers to the data rate. In ethernet or optical transports, the frequency range is (essentially) unlimited, so 'bandwidth' is used in a different way without ambiguity.

Given that, hopefully you'll fix your contributions... Hawerchuk (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Would you be able to place the reference of your idea? I was unable to see any reference to your understanding. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I placed the previous topic about bandwidth that you consider that the author of IEEE confused the definition of bandwidth on a professional article from IEEE. Please write the reference if you believe that the expert author of this article does not understand what bandwidth is. If you are more knowledgeable than the IEEE Spectrum Staff: Amy Nordrum, Kristen Clark, Please advise them their confusion via email on the article. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) See Wiki entry for Mobile Broadband:. Bandwidth = "wider channel frequency bandwidth in Hertz"; article distinctly notes "Speeds in Mbit/s"
 * 2) See Wiki entry for Cellular Frequencies:. "Each block is between 10 MHz and 30 MHz in bandwidth"
 * Cellular/mobile broadband industry uses 'bandwidth' to refer amount of spectrum. You can certainly find colloquial references to 'bandwidth' meaning speed, but those are sloppy, and that error should not be propagated here.

Hawerchuk (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Please find another advice explains the meaning of Mobile Bandwidth "An Expert Explains 3G, 4G, WiFi" As I described your misunderstanding about bandwidth, Speeds in Mbit/s = it is data throughput in the mobile network, and it is also terminology: bandwidth. If you are confident that IEEE Spectrum Staff: Amy Nordrum, Kristen Clark is wrong with their understanding about mobile bandwidth, please advise them to fix their mistake in the public release below on IEEE. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * User Hawerchuk (talk) is correct. In wireless communications, bandwidth refers to the amount of frequency spectrum over which a signal is sent. It's even in the Wiktionary definition of bandwidth and the Wikipedia article on bandwidth. For the sake of clarity (or as User Hawerchuk has written, "lack of ambiguity"), we should use bandwidth only with that meaning, and throughput for the amount of data per unit time (see Wiktionary article on throughput and Wikipedia article on throughput). Let's move on from this.--papageno (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes bandwidth denotes the width in frequency space used by a signal. For many modulation methods, the bit rate and bandwith are proportional with a proportionality constant near unity. You can trade signal/noise vs. bit rate over a small range. The result of this, is that bandwidth is commonly used to describe bit rate.  Yes it is wrong, but probably a WP:COMMONNAME by now.  Not quite as bad as broadband, which is supposed to mean bandwidth large compared to center frequency, but now has other meanings.  Gah4 (talk) 06:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The relationship between bandwidth (spectrum usage) and bit-rate also depends on the encoding system that is used, which should be taken to include any error-correction etc. And to be accurate, "bandwidth" refers to the spectrum usage of a single band; 5G evidently uses multiple bands simultaneously in a single connection. Bandwidth != bit-rate. MrDemeanour (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Censorship health concerns over exponential increase in emf radiation checks over wikipedia neutrality
I urge editors to refrain any further suppression over the matter. And demand the section re-instalment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.230.75.49 (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * "Exponential", eh? You mean, the emf radiation increases at a rate proportional to - er - the amount of emf radiation? I can't make sense of that. Also, I suspect that the term "emf" is being used here by someone who doesn't actually know what it stands for. Otherwise I think they would have simply omitted it - "radiation" nearly always means electromagnetic radiation (which includes light and radiant heat). The kind of electromagnetic radiation you appear to be talking about is microwave radiation. There is no evidence that the amount of microwave radiation involved in mobile telephony is harmful, even if you are close to a cell tower. The acronym "EMF" stands for "electromagnetic field" or "electromotive force". In neither case does the phrase "emf radiation" make any sense. I'm sorry to whine about your misuse of technical terminology, but after all you are trying to refer to a technical subject.


 * "Censorship" is the active suppression of information by a government. That term is not applicable to private organizations such as WP.


 * "Demand": that's not how it works. It seems you are new around here. Take some time to read more articles, see how Talk pages work, and learn about the editing process. Have a look at reliable sources as a start. If you would like some help, don't hesitate to post a brief message to my user talk page - I'll pick it up within a day or so. MrDemeanour (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Daveburstein (talk) 05:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC) I made a major change by deleting the section on Huawei security controversies. There is a (long) separate article on the subject. It is important, but applies to much more than 5G. It's certainly appropriate for someone to add here some references to 5G, Huawei and security, but please keep it brief and link to the main article. I also made numerous small changes reflecting new information as the first 300,000 users have been connected.

I note the discussion here about radiation dangers. I added two highly credible sources with citations. "In April, 2019, the city of Brussels in Belgium blocked a 5G trial because of radiation fears.[57] In Geneva, Switzerland, a planned upgrade to 5G was stopped for the same reason.[58]" I also added "Most authorities do not believe there is conclusive evidence of harm.[56]" I think this is a neutral, well-sourced section on an issue of concern. Improvements welcome, but I haven't seen solid information that adds much to the discussion. Dave


 * It is not just Huawei that is in question. And it is specifically for 5G as you can see in the text.C933103 (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

UN Staff Member: 5G Is War on Humanity
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/un-staff-member-5g-war-humanity?utm_source=Daily+Greenmedinfo.com+Email+List&utm_campaign=743bc53cdc-UN+Staff+Member%3A+5G+Is+War+on+Humanity&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_193c8492fb-743bc53cdc-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D&ct=t%28Institute+for+Scientific+Freedom_COPY_01%29&mc_cid=743bc53cdc&mc_eid=%5BUNIQID%5D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.8.81 (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A blog is not a reliable source. C933103 (talk) 06:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Even if we don't discuss whether the source is effective, there is no UN document to prove this.At least I have not seen any relevant information on the official UN website. by 61.224.2.10

Disinformation. Zezen (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

What is the capacity per area?
20gbps capacity per cell. Great. But what is the theoretical maximum capacity per area? This must obvious relate to the cells being used. As 5G is constantly praised as a serious competitor to wired networks, I wonder how this may actually really work in a world of more and more FTTH networks, which do not use shared networks as 5G obviously does. Any more serious info on this subject available? Yeah 20gbps per cell is great, but what about all those other people who may take that capacity away from me ... 2A00:1398:300:202:0:0:0:102E (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Area for each cell depends on how carriers deploy their network. Note that bottleneck in carrier network at neighborhood/other different section of the network can also occur even if the network standard is like FTTH, as there are no guarantee on the total bandwidth available via fiber from ISP to these intermediate nodes, where the advertised speed usually represent the speed between your local optical router and the nearest node the ISP provide near you. C933103 (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Section/link on problems with 5G
Hi, I mentioned elsewhere that I looked in vain for anything on potential problems with 5G. This is to signal that, if I get a chance, I hope to start a section, or at least a link, to reputable sources that have flagged these issues: for example the danger that trees that get in the way may be destroyed, aesthetic issues around the proliferation of masts, possible health issues, etc. I intend to use only serious mainstream sources (e.g. newspapers of record) and not amateur blogs and the like. It would save me a lot of time and effort if anyone who has a problem with that idea could let me know before I spend the time on the research, and also indicate what kind of literature is acceptable, as well as what isn't. (I don't have a technical background so I'm winging it a bit on this, but I'll do the best I can.) Thanks.Be-nice:-) (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Some problems that you mentioned were the subject of raving edits to this page that required freezing it. Rather, since much of what you propose presupposes a lot of things that are not specific to 5G,  they would fit better in other pages or in a new page altogether. ebahapo (talk)

Thanks :-) That's helpful to know. I wasn't up to speed on the editorial history. The following is the kind of thing I wss thinking of, from the website of RTE, the state broadcaster in Ireland (equivalent of the BBC). The article is balanced, directly relevant to 5G, written by a professor in the area, mentions the issues without over-egging them (as far as I can tell) and cites relevant sources. Would that pass muster, and if not why not? As I said, I'm not an expert in the area so I can only go on what seem to be appropriate sources https://www.rte.ie/eile/brainstorm/2019/0313/1036125-should-we-be-worried-about-radiation-from-5g-networks/Be-nice:-) (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * No, it does not pass muster. Microwaves are not ionizing radiation (implying something that is emitted by rays) and therefore does not cause cancer, unlike ionizing radiation, like β rays.  Moreover, 5G will also use low frequency microwaves (below 6 GHz), just like 4G and 3G, and, decades after human exposure to such microwave radiation, no ill effects have been observed.  On the other hand, 5G will additionally use high frequency microwaves (above 24 GHz), near and into the mm-wave range.  Much of similar alarmist reports focus on this range, but, between the two, this is actually the least concerning.  The fallacious argument stems from the fact that 5G in the mm-wave range will necessitate a higher density of antennas to cover an area with signal.  The reason is that mm-waves are absorbed by water vapor in the atmosphere, which rapidly decreases their range.  Thus, with a shorter range per each antenna, more antennas are needed to cover a given area than with lower frequencies.  However, regardless of the number of antennas or the frequency used, typically the power emitted by the antenna will be less than 10W, the power reaching the user equipment will be in the range between fW to µW and the power emitted by it will be less than ¼W.  As a matter of fact, mm-waves are more likely to be mostly absorbed by the skin, unlike low frequency microwaves, which can reach into the muscles.  Still, the effect of microwaves being absorbed by living tissue is increased temperature and never genetic mutation.  Yet, unlike meat in a microwave oven, whose power is up to 1500W, the temperature increase will be minute and innocuous.  I suggest that you read on Electromagnetic radiation and health and Mobile phone radiation and health and, should you still desire to contribute to the discussion, you do it those pages first. ebahapo (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 02:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm a bit flummoxed here. Obviously I can't begin to argue the case re the technicalities, but I'm puzzled why an article (a) written by a professor in the area and (b) in a reputable publication, would not be regarded as at least having arguable status in this entry. Are you saying that anything that raises health issues is ipso facto to be dismissed without a hearing, even if it's written by Einstein (or whoever the equivalent may be in this area)? But leaving aside the health issues, there are in any case other concerns. As you write yourself: "Thus, with a shorter range per each antenna, more antennas are needed to cover a given area than with lower frequencies." This would potentially raise aesthetic, cultural and environmental issues (extraneous to health matters) which are surely worth noting and including in the discussion. So if I can source material critical of the proliferation of antennae, is it appropriate to include it in the entry, and if not, why not?Be-nice:-) (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither WP:NONFACT nor WP:SOAPBOX will be allowed in this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebahapo (talk • contribs) 17:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, first - the professor isn't writing in his area. He's a professor of 'Cyber Security' who's writing about medicine here. Second, Wikipedia has special sourcing requirements for medical claims precisely because the popular media gets this kind of thing wrong so frequently. - MrOllie (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, so if I can source material from medical experts in reputable publications who question 5G, is that OK? (Though I imagine that people with expertise in both medicine and mobile phone technology are kind of scarce...) Apart from the medical issues though, is there any objection to citing issues that have been raised about the potential proliferation of antennae, from (e.g.) an environmental, aesthetic or cultural POV? NB I do not intend to go down the "Soapbox" road, insofar as I understand the policy/guidelines, simply to note the objections that are out there. Thank you. Be-nice:-) (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, I encourage you to contribute what you find at Mobile phone radiation and health and Cell site and, if it's accepted there (cf. WP:PRIMARY, WP:NOR, WP:NOTABILITY, WP: NPOV ), I'd be glad to link to it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebahapo (talk • contribs) 02:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks like a useful site. I'm wondering though why this article doesn't link to it already (?) On a separate matter, can I assume that there is no objection to including non-health issues that have been raised to 5G in this article, e.g. environmental, aesthetic or cultural, due to the proliferation of antennae?Be-nice:-) (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe someone will object, maybe not. Without seeing the proposed source it's hard to know. - MrOllie (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please, see the See also section. Also, I do not think that this article is the right place for aesthetic issues of cell sites.  Again, as I pointed out above, contribute your research in Cell site and, after it's integrated there, though I don't pretend to speak for all, I'd be glad to link to it here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebahapo (talk • contribs) 19:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Here is an example of the issues raised re the proliferation of antennae, from the conservative British newspaper The Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/03/30/400000-extra-phone-masts-needed-bring-5g-network-rural-britain/?fbclid=IwAR3GH73TXBkNO4sbuakGjCfup_l6rVLf0pqKro5yX6oWnMmRWud-2q_Uhe8. (There is also a lot of stuff on the Internet re the supposed connection between preparation for 5G and widespread tree-felling in the UK and ROI, though I've struggled to find any "respectable" sources on the tree issue, i.e. not self-published blogs and the like. There is certainly an inordinate amount of tree-felling going on, and 5G is certainly being rolled out, though whether there is any connection between the two is another matter).Be-nice:-) (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * This article is a perfect example of WP:SOURCE. And, as all the other sources you mentioned, it's written by clueless authors. For instance, it assumes that 5G always requires a dense antenna deployment, which is only true for mm waves. 5G can and will be deployed on the same frequencies and masts as 2G, 3G, 4G as well. Therefore, in rural areas, there just is no ROI in deploying 5G in mm waves. As a matter of fact, it seems that these are the only sources that motivate you. If these are the kind of sources that you are using in your research, then it's not research at all and its results have no place in an encyclopedia, but in Reddit, 4chan, etc. Again, no WP:SOAPBOX.  Ebahapo (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

From WP: SOURCE: "Other reliable sources include:

University-level textbooks Books published by respected publishing houses Magazines Journals Mainstream newspapers"

The Telegraph is undoubtedly a mainstream newspaper, though as it happens I don't normally agree with its politics. It seems to me that you have a somewhat dogmatic view of what should and shouldn't be included here. Anyway, I've better things to do than to get into a Wikipedia squabble. Have a nice day.Be-nice:-) (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I remind everyone, neither Ebahapo nor anyone else has the authority to WP:OWN this page. The whole section above beginning with "No, it does not pass muster. Microwaves are not ionizing radiation (implying something that is emitted by rays) and therefore does not cause cancer, unlike ionizing radiation, like β rays.  " is WP:OR without any sources. I assess the text in that section as bullying. I certainly will be keeping an eye open here. 18:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, but I assumed that the links at See also section provided enough support for my statement above. Specifically, Mobile phone radiation and health, from Electromagnetic radiation and health.  I also recognize that I fell into WP:POVRAILROAD, for which I apologize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebahapo (talk • contribs) 21:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * this quote from WP:FRINGE explains why it would be (and therefore is) quite wrong to summarily exclude alternative scientific theories about the effects of 5G: “Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted.“ Boscaswell   talk  19:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Reading this whole talk I get the impression that owning content and shooting down concerns is a priority. Also, seeing "Radiation FEARS" and "Espionage FEARS" as index points seem very biased. When looking up a hot topic like 5G, one would expect at least a broad spectrum rather than the rather narrow one of technical jargon, which those who DO understand such would not need in detail. I know this balance to be an old discussion, but I DO suggest you make room for (wider) concerns, starting with a change of the index. A central heading just called CONCERNS containing the present concerns, OR a referral from such to separate topic, eg "5G concerns". I mean: 5G implies a changed Earth in the way we communicate and utilise data, and concerns are 4 measly lines, of which 2 are mine! Krabat —Preceding undatedcomment added 10:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

On the assumption that, at some state, a section on problems/concerns/criticisms/controversy will be added to this entry (though maybe I'm being too optimistic) here is another article from a mainstream publication, this time the respected magazine the New Yorker. It adds the issues of surveillance/political security to the issues already mentioned (i.e. danger to trees, aesthetic and environmental concerns, health issues, etc.): https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-communications/the-terrifying-potential-of-the-5g-network Be-nice:-) (talk) 12:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Oops...I just noticed that there is in fact the basis for a surveillance section in the article. The above New Yorker article might be a useful source for expansion of that.Be-nice:-) (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I came across this recent article in The Lancet which may be a useful link for the issue of health effects. It specifically mentions 5G: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(18)30221-3/fulltextBe-nice:-) (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

This looks like a useful source for scientific research on 5G and potential problems: https://www.emf-portal.org/en/search/results?query=5G&languageIds%5B%5D=enBe-nice:-) (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I came across this, which looks like a useful source on the potential effects of 5G on trees in the UK. I did a "find" on words like "trees," "leaves," "foliage" etc with some interesting results: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/684420/OS_Final_report__5g-planning-geospatial-considerations.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2ST3D9it88y1Ie-qrFhJLWFXCiJX9OzVcelTrBLEPJHI7ytH6_VlnMqNABe-nice:-) (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Please stop the agenda editing and move on to something else. R2 (bleep) 19:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Radiation fears
The New York times recently made a report that seems like an op-ed that accuses RT America of spreading fake news about 5G radiation effects. I have found many news outlets that are not related to RT that are "spreading fears" of 5G like how it might cause cancer. According to DW around 250 scientists from around the world have signed a petition to slow down the roll out of 5G because they fear that 5G could cause cancer. I don't think that what RT America reported at that day was unusual in mainstream media. Most of American mainstream media have reported news about 5G radiation fears. According to a report from 2019/1/8 [https://www.engadget.com/2019/01/08/verizon-disney-the-new-york-times-5g/ thus source] "Verizon will partner with The New York Times to create a 5G journalism lab, though the full details of how that program will work exactly are still unclear." so for me it does seem suspicious that the only news paper to report this was the New York times and therefore it looks biased towards Verizon. This section in my opinion needs to be updated with real scientific research sources not news outlets agenesis and even if we need to add something like that it should be summarised and not given too much details. So that's why I reverted your addition here --SharabSalam (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The significant issue with the RT report is that RT is an organ of the Russian government and does what the government -- under the leadership of Putin -- wants. What does Putin want? “We need to look forward. The challenge for the upcoming years is to organize universal access to high-speed internet, to start operation of the fifth-generation communication systems.”[ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/science/5g-phone-safety-health-russia.html ] But that is for Russia, not for the US.--BoogaLouie (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC) --207.225.131.140 (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC) --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem with the text is that it is too much detailed and for that reason it become more about about RT America and Russia topic not 5G->radiation fears topic so because of that I felt that it should be summarised that if it has got significant attention from reliable sources. You can add this paragraph to RT America article it would be very suitable there but here with this amount of details it looks off-topic--SharabSalam (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * an IP address editted your comment I reverted. Was that you? Please clarify--SharabSalam (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes was me. Did not realize I was not logged in. --BoogaLouie (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a notable topic for inclusion. SharabSalam's characterization of the NYT as an "op-ed" is an opinion that wouldn't hold up to community scrutiny or a RSN review. The NYT article is a top-shelf investigative report that is feature length. Unlike other news sources the NYT has a higher threshold of reliability and fact checking. The inclusion doesn't need to be so lengthy and detailed, I agree, but some mention of it needs to be here. -- Green  C  23:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems that the NYT report has got some attention from other news outlets since the time we were talking here. I do feel that the story is worth inclusion now and I think that it should not be detailed. We should stay on the topic of the radiation fears. I think we can remove or squeeze some quotations such as these quotes. Putin: “The challenge for the upcoming years is to organize universal access to high-speed internet, to start operation of the fifth-generation communication systems,” and quoted US-based analysts worrying that “Russia doesn’t have a good 5G play, so it tries to undermine and discredit ours” (Ryan Fox of New Knowledge) and that the Russian government “would really enjoy getting democratic governments tied up in fights over 5G’s environmental and health hazards,” these informations doesn't really belong to the section and more about RT America than radiation fears. Would it be okay if I summarised these informations?. I said that the NYT report seems like an op-ed because IMO it wasn't actually accurate and full of baseless accusations. I explained what RT America reported that day about how 5G could cause cancer is not something unusual in the mainstream media but the NYT chose only RT America to attack, then the NYT said that all of radiation fears reports are Russian propaganda. I also pointed out that the NYT report might be biased because it has business relationship with Verizon. I guess I will have to discuss this here WP:V/N.--SharabSalam (talk) 01:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with the consensus that the content that was removed was reliably sourced, relevant, and noteworthy. Some trimming may be in order but the quotes SharabSalam is proposing for deletion definitely belong. R2 (bleep) 16:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I did some trimming/streamlining/sharpening. R2 (bleep) 20:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ahrtoodeetoo, looks good. I honestly couldn't have made it better than what you did. The New York times article is behind unskippable payment wall (although I can see it for just few seconds) all I know about the report is from other sources. I have got one question. I am not so familiar with RT America but is this statement ("RT America, a Russian propaganda outlet") accurate? and can we make it in wiki voice?--SharabSalam (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It is, and we can. We couldn't have a few years ago, but in the last couple of years the reliable media has come around and is now regularly describing RT as a propaganda outlet. I can add sources if necessary. R2 (bleep) 21:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , Hi, I am not sure that what you did is considered as an original research or not I have asked a question in here and I will send you a message so that you be notified about this discussion in case you want to participate. The reason for this is that I am not sure if its original research or not --SharabSalam (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

A crazy thought: what if Russian propaganda has taken a leading role in spreading fears over 5G safety not because it wants to undermine its implementation in the West, but to actually discredit these claimed safety issues by associating it with Russia, in the hope they are actually valid? -- A man without a country (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 5G phone - ZTE Axon 10 Pro 5G.jpg

overview
A lot of this isn't unique to 5G. The main point about 5G is that it's reportedly much faster than 4G and will lead to ubiquity of connectivity. The article as a whole is also written far too much in terms of mobile (voice) telephony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.237.221 (talk) 09:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

propaganda
Recent edits delete some statements based on WP:NPOV. As well as I know, that mostly applies to editors. If the majority of WP:RS say something, then it should be good enough for WP. The references are to the Washington Post and New York Times, usually considered reliable sources. Gah4 (talk) 05:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an article on 5G technology and not a place to discuss media outlets. Take it elsewhere if you so badly need to discredit sources. — kashmīrī  TALK  20:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don't edit war. RT's affiliation with the Russian government, however we describe it, is highly relevant to this article. R2 (bleep) 21:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * you are the only one responsible for this mess. You brought irrelevant SYNTH sources to make the claim that RT America is propaganda. You exploited the fact that the NYT article is behind a paywall. I was wrong when I said above that you've done a good job.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. It's not behind a paywall, and I removed what you're calling synth pending the outcome of that discussion. Let's please stay civil and avoid personalizing this dispute any further. R2 (bleep) 22:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , just to let you know I have removed the whole paragraph. The inclusion should be decided by the RfC.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems that you are trying to own this article. You have been reverting everyone removing that SYNTH and NOW suddenly you admitted you were wrong?--SharabSalam (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also during the RfC that paragraph should not be in the article. Just like you can't ask the teacher "Can I enter the class?" while you are already in the class. You can't ask for inclusion while it is already in the article.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * According to what policy? R2 (bleep) 23:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * According to common sense. Multiple editors have objected your biased paragraph and you are in the RfC asking for inclusion. In common sense you can't ask for inclusion while it is already included and you are literally owning the article reverting anyone removing the paragraph.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Do other editors please back me up and support the inclusion of this content? SharabSalam, I'm really struggling to understand what's going on here. I directly addressed the one issue you raised about this content, which was that you didn't like the combination of content from multiple sources into a single sentence. Everything in the sentence we're edit warring over is sourced to the New York Times article. Why are you fighting over this? R2 (bleep) 23:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * you didn't address anything..the issue is your ownership of this article. The RfC which is worded like this :"Should X be included?" It is not worded like "Should X be removed?" The article should not include the paragraph during the RfC.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:STATUSQUO this should be left up until the RfC process concludes. - MrOllie (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean before the addition of the paragraph? That's when the editwars started.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean when the RfC started. The paragraph had already been there for some time. - MrOllie (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Sometime" like how much time? You and Ahrtoodeetoo were reverting editors who removed it since it was added. The RfC is asking for inclusion therefore it should not be added until the RfC ends. I fail to understand your reasoning.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Reworded in the spirit of NPOV as In 2018, RT America began airing programming linking 5G to what they called harmful health effects, such as "brain cancer, infertility, autism, heart tumors and Alzheimer’s disease". The stories have soon spread to hundreds of blogs and websites.[106] The channel's claims have not been backed by solid evidence and some suggested that this was merely an effort by the Russian government to discredit the 5G technology. — kashmīrī  TALK  21:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a standing RfC about it right above on this page. It was not officially closed with any outcome. Modifying disputed text during standing RfC is a bad practice and against the rules. Wait until it is officially closed. And no, this is not an NPOV-consistent version because the majority of independent sources do tell it is a propaganda outlet. My very best wishes (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The RfC has run for way longer than the required 30 days and despite a lengthy debate has clearly not reached a consensus to include such statements. Closing it now as "no consensus" is a mere formality. — kashmīrī  TALK  19:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is closed as "no consensus", then we should restore version that existed at the moment of the RfC. That would one of two versions here, you can chose which one. My very best wishes (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If there is no consensus then the paragraph must be removed. The RfC says "Should that paragraph be included?" Clearly there are editors here who think that they own this article.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The RfC was about including the mentioned text and not about future modifications of the paragraph. — kashmīrī  TALK  08:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , listen please. Don't modify the text during the RfC. It should be there to show how garbage it is. Like the SNYTH and all stuff. I have reverted to the text from the RfC.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * While R2 asks if the paragraph should exist, it already existed (in some version) prior to the RfC. Therefore, "no consensus" means restoring the status quo, i.e. restoring the paragraph as it existed prior to the RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * the status que would be before the garbage paragraph was added. I will remove it myself when the RfC close.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, this is hard to say because the paragraph was included a couple of weeks prior to the RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

5G availability tables
Hello, I've been a bit bold and added (carrier) to the end of each carrier. I realize this is an inelegant solution, so I've opened this talk topic. As it stands, the table is quite confusing since "City" is on the same column as the cities (bottom) but also on the same row as the carriers. It didn't even click for me that each one was supposed to be a carrier, since I'm really not all that familiar with other country's carriers like Three or O2. The point being is that inversely, some readers might just as confused as what "Sprint" is, for instance. I'm not really good enough with tables to know how we should do this. Will wikilinks to carriers suffice? Can we set up the table to make it clearer which is the city and which is the carrier? hbdragon88 (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Good evening, I should have fixed the problem. Take a look and let me know, please. Thank you --BOSS.mattia (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * update: information now visibile on the page List of 5G NR networks --BOSS.mattia (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * last update: previous version restored in this page. Please view history of List of 5G NR networks --BOSS.mattia (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * That looks great, thanks. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Russian disinformation
Should the following paragraph about Russia Today (or substantially similar content) be included in the article? R2 (bleep) 17:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC) The whole paragraph is at issue, though I'm bolding the portion that has been the primary focus of some recent edit warring and discussion.


 * RT America, a propaganda outlet for the Russian government,   aired programming linking 5G to harmful health effects without scientific support. Several RT stories have warned of health impacts such as "brain cancer, infertility, autism, heart tumors and Alzheimer’s disease" and have spread to hundreds of blogs and websites. Meanwhile, Russian president Vladimir Putin ordered the launch of Russian 5G network in February 2019. Ryan Fox, an executive of a technology firm that tracks disinformation, said, “Russia doesn’t have a good 5G play, so it tries to undermine and discredit ours.” Molly McKew, the head a U.S.-based firm that seeks to counter Russian disinformation, said the Russian government “would really enjoy getting democratic governments tied up in fights over 5G’s environmental and health hazards.”

(Please note, there's a related discussion going on concurrently at WP:ORN.) R2 (bleep) 17:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 May 2020 and 3 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yuxin L-.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Survey

 * Yes but The bolded text should be reworded as the NYT source says something like this "It [RT America] has been described as 'Russian propaganda outlet'". The NYT report is the only source that address the issue of 5G and clearly put the the claim inside a quote not in the NYT voice. The other 1,2,3 sources are about RT(not even RT America) being propaganda outlet not about 5G. This seems like SYNTH to me. The bolded text can reworded like this "media outlet funded by Russia" or "a media outlet that has been described as a 'Russian propaganda'" 'Russian propaganda' can be replaced with 'kremlin propaganda' as per the NYT source--SharabSalam (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * YES I think it is natural for the propaganda media to deal with biased information about 5G. That is why I am in favor of dealing with the information. Also, I think it is not a lie because it is based on facts.--Wnghksdl (talk) 08:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * yes...and this paragraph obviously need some copy editing work. Viztor (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a discussion in RT talk page regarding the issue of the bolded text. What if the out come of the discussion contradicted the out come of the RfC? I don't know whether editors in that discussion are aware of this RfC or not.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes Let's not get ourselves into a knot about trivialities. The statement as it stands is good enough till Russia decides to sue WP. If someone wishes to introduce diplomatic periphrasis while maintaining encyclopedicity readability, and comprehensibility, let them produce an acceptable version first, then worry about arguing the point. JonRichfield (talk) 06:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes relevant, sourced and accurate information. -- Green  C  18:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No Way People 'of a certain age' remember when the New York Times ran with the fake news that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction, which could be considered U.S. Government propaganda in that it had the effect of bolstering the call for war. So I tend to question the NYT to this day. In this case it was warranted. Besides the SYNTH in the beginning portion, which is disallowed, the rest of the proposed section is sourced to the NYT. The piece is a conspiracy theory that suggests the only criticism of 5G comes from Putin or has nefarious origins. The NYT has a major conflict of interest when it comes to 5G. Carlos Slim, majority owner of the NYT (Mexican billionaire, 5th richest person in the world) is a business man, and like Putin, not necessarily an arbiter of truth. In this case, he has a vested interest in 5G's success, with his ownership of American Movil. As well, the NYT itself has a COI with regard to reporting on 5G. In April of this year, they announced that The New York Times has launched a 5G Journalism Lab and has partnered with Verizon (which "has been in a cutthroat competition with AT&T to be the first carrier to offer 5G, and it has now claimed that title)". The piece is inaccurate by suggesting that Russia Today is the only source of 'negative' 5G reporting, Newsweek and CBS have also run stories; and The Lancet has published science showing that "prolonged exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation has serious biological and health effects". If this NYT piece is to be mentioned, the section should include a refutation. But don't let WP become a mouthpiece for Carlos Slim et al, unless the reporting is balanced, accurate, and free of COI.   petrarchan47 คุ  ก   04:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This comment misrepresents the New York Times piece pretty badly, but what I want to point out is that, all newspapers like the Times have gotten things wrong from time to time, that doesn't mean they're propaganda outlets. There are dozens of reliable sources say that RT is a propaganda outlet. There's not a single one that says the NYT is a propaganda outlet. Sticking with the reliable sources is Wikipedia 101. R2 (bleep) 15:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Petrarchan47 has demonstrated, referring to multiple sources, that NYT is not a neutral source as regards 5G since it has a clear and publicly known conflict of interest with 5G-promoting businesses. What are you trying to achieve by your patronising tone towards Petrarchan47? — kashmīrī  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  19:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ahrtoodeetoo, I disagree with your POV assertion:
 * Noam Chomsky: The New York Times is pure propaganda, Salon.
 * ADL head calls NY Times cartoon ‘vile anti-Semitic propaganda’, The Times of Israel.
 * The New York Times' role in promoting war on Iraq, The Sydney Morning Herald.
 * The Spirit of Judy Miller Is Alive and Well at the NYT, and It Does Great Damage, The Intercept.
 * Correspondence and collusion between the New York Times and the CIA, The Guardian.
 * ‘NY Times’ disgracefully joins the propaganda campaign to push for war against Iran, Mondoweiss.
 * NYT Prints Government-Funded Propaganda About Government-Funded Propaganda, Fair. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if NYT is a "biased source" on this subject (I doubt), it is still a highly reliable source per WP:RS. This is not a valid argument for deleting the paragraph. My very best wishes (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with Tobby the NYT is a biased source and there are many instances of their propaganda as Tobby pointed out. Also as quoted: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". We only have an analyst POV.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There is nothing extraordinary in the claim that RT was "described as a propaganda outlet for the Russian government". This is actually a common place, a "majority" view (please see the references on our page). This paragraph used five RS, one of which is NYT. On the other hand, saying that "NYT is a biased source and there are many instances of their propaganda", well, that sounds opinionated. My very best wishes (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * See what the paragraph at the top says "RT America, a propaganda outlet for the Russian government" it makes it in Wikivoice also the extraordinary claim is that RT America is the one that is promoting fear from 5G implementation because Russia can't afford one. This claim is an extraordinary claim when we have a lot of other media outlets who have also promoted concerns about 5G radiation as mentioned before in this discussion. Also we only have the NYT report which is the main source for the 5G-RT_America issue. The other sources are used by the editor as SYNTH in order to support the claim that RT is a propaganda outlet. They aren't about 5G. They are not relevant sources.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Text above does NOT say that RT is the only one making concerns about the safety. To the contrary, page makes it clear there are other sources. As about "a propaganda outlet", this is not an extraordinary statement, but a "majority" view. As our page tells, RT has been frequently described as a propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy.   RT has also been accused of spreading disinformation  by news reporters, including some former RT reporters.   The United Kingdom media regulator, Ofcom, has repeatedly found RT to have breached its rules on impartiality and on one occasion found it had broadcast "materially misleading" content. RT's editor-in-chief compared it with the Russian Army and Defence Ministry, and talked about it "waging the information war against the entire Western world." In September 2017, RT America was ordered to register as a "foreign agent" with the United States Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act." My very best wishes (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * No because it is inaccurate, I have changed my vote after petrarchan47 comment. I have argued with a similar argument here . I don't think the report in the NYT is accurate because other news outlets have talked about fears from 5G radiation effects and I think the NYT has a conflict of interest particularly when it comes to 5G due to their relationship with Verizon. I still also think that saying "RT America is propaganda outlet" in Wikivoice is not appropriate.--SharabSalam (talk) 05:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also the NYT claim sounds ridiculous. They say that Putin wants to undermine the 5G implementation in the West because he can't afford one. This claim based one what? How did they know what his intentions are??? I honestly don't know how can we add something like this to an encyclopedic article. Also, Russia has made an agreement with Huawei and they are going to build a 5G network in Russia. The U.S. in other hands has attacked Huawei and now the U.S. 5G roll out is delayed.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * No This section should focus on genuine health concerns and not focus on controversy regarding media outlets and propoganda wars, which might be best in another section. Probrooks (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes (summoned by bot). Obviously we should say so because that reflects what RS says, and NPOV requires we make it clear when a view (such as one offered by RT) is of dodgy origin. Alexbrn (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This "view" was offered also by The Lancet, CBS and Newsweek as linked in my comment; Also the WHO found (PDF) "radio frequency electromagnetic fields — the type transmitted by cellphones — are a possible cause of cancer in humans. A panel of 31 experts from 14 countries found that there was limited evidence of carcinogenicity among users of cellphones for two types of brain tumors, glioma and acoustic neuroma."*;
 * WP:CONTEXTMATTERS "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content"
 * WP:COI -- The NYT has partnered with Verizon to create a "5G journalism lab"
 * WP:UNDUE "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" -- the view that Putin is responsible for any questioning of 5G safety is held by only one source: the NYT.  <span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px  #B8B8B8;"> petrarchan47 คุ  ก   23:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * No owing to previously described opposition in terms of contentious labels. (Beyond that, the case of external services is far more complex and nuanced than black and white labels of "propaganda" versus "news." There's an emerging tract of scholarship on this topic within communications science that is helping better contextualize our understanding of external services like RT, teleSUR, etc`.) That said, sourcing this claim to RS would probably be fine, I just don't think we should put it in WP's own voice. Chetsford (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes This is well supported by very good sources. The NYT is a top-tier source, and we absolutely should be following their lead in calling out disinformation campaigns here. - MrOllie (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No for the same reasons as User:SharabSalam. -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Leaning no For started the wording above "... a propaganda outlet for the Russian Government" is not neutral, a more neutral wording would be to copy from the RT America article saying that it is funded by the Russian Government which is factual and allows the reader to draw their own conclusion. Now we should also consider a case WP:WEIGHT does some programs published in a low quality source (RT) really deserve any mention. We would not really give article space to reports published by Breitbart. The above text is making a quite extravagant claim of a deliberate campaign of disinformation and  "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" yet the evidence is a single article depending on the view of one Analysts. Just not strong enough. --Salix alba (talk): 17:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No – This article is about 5G, not about RT or the NYT. — JFG talk 08:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No – per Petrarchan47 above and because taking propaganda wars into a technology article is plainly stupid. — kashmīrī  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  19:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We are not making any "propaganda wars" here, but simply say what RS say. I do not see any problem with rewording the phrase. My very best wishes (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The NYT is partner with Verizon.. It is simply a promotion/advertisement article, the source has a COI problem. See what Petrarchan47 and I said above this in addition. Also reliability doesn't  mean inclusion. also the fact that the NYT has published 5G related companies advertisements makes it more difficult to believe their analysis.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, the paragraph about covering the 5G technology in Russia should be included per WP:NPOV. There is no any reason to exclude this well sourced and notable information on the subject. Note that the 5G technology is related to a number of political controversies, and there is no reasons to exclude them just because this is a page "on technology". However, I think the paragraph should be phrased differently, i.e. as in the first paragraph here. My very best wishes (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, unless someone presents more sources. RT is definitely propaganda and widely sourceable as propaganda, however I'm only seeing a single source for the paragraph itself. It's undue weight to include junk in an article just because one source mentions that junk exists. I'd want to see a few sources before considering whether this topic warrants any space in an encyclopedia article about 5G. Alsee (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion
5.44.170.9 is edit warring over this content and has demanded a non-Western source describing RT as propaganda. So here are two: Hong Kong, Brazil. R2 (bleep) 16:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't help the argument for inclusion since all of those sources are editorials. Prove it or remove it. Wayne Kinoff (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * C933103 (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And what, editorial can not be a source?--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Demonstrably false, not editorials. R2 (bleep) 15:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

One man's propaganda is another person's 5-o'clock news. Propaganda has a negative connotation, and should be, in most modern cases (imo) be couched as "alleged", "purported", or "several governments and/or organizations call it". Previous propaganda machines, such as existed during WWII are largely and almost universally declared as such by reputable commentators and historians. Modern organizations are usually still building their reputations or modifying them. I would add the paragraph, but specify that claims of a propaganda arm of the Russian government be specifically mentioned by source and date, e.g. "RT, seen by some news outlets (such as the New York Times in June 2019) as a propaganda dissemination arm of the Russian Government". For the record, the Kremlin is a pseudonym for the Russian Government, like the White House or the Hill is for the US Government. —Trumblej1986 (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Here I am, opening Propaganda, and it is described as "information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda". Then, here I am, opening RT (TV network), and what do I see in first lines? RT says about itself that it "acquaints international audiences with a Russian viewpoint on major global events". What else do we need? They confess themselves that their aim is spreading propaganda, not objective information. -- A man without a country (talk) 12:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * You need more than a source saying of itself that it is presenting a certain viewpoint. Again, propaganda has a negative connotation, usually, so with something as contentious as this, a higher standard should be in place. A reputable third-party source that says that RT is presenting this viewpoint in the furtherance of an agenda is at least the minimum necessary, imo, to substantiate this claim. -Trumblej1986 (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

This part about RT seems to reflect particular editorialising on the part of New York Times, as if it was fact. I am not sure there is sufficient evidence to backup these claims that the Russian government is against the west adopting 5G because of economic reasons. Does this really fit into the section of health effects? Is this really the reason why people are concerned about the health effects of 5G?

It would appear to me that a lot of people are concerned because they are reading the scientific literature regarding how non-ionising microwave radiation can profoundly effect biological life or are already being negatively effected by 4G. This is not mentioned, nor the petitions by scientists which could give the reader some idea as to why people have concerns about the rollout of 5G. I.E. no scientific studies have been carried out to show how the wattage and frequencies of 5G effect the human population.

Probrooks (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't say that the Russian government is against the West adopted 5G because of economic reasons; rather, we stick closely to the source, which is reliable. We don't require reliable sources to lay out their evidence. As for your latter point, if there are reliable sources that describe these concerns, then by all means, feel free to add them. R2 (bleep) 16:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't want to seem like I'm bludgeoning, but I do think it's inaccurate to claim that because the NYT is deemed RS, it is in all cases reliable and that there are no other concerns. I've raised the NYT/5G/COI issue at RS/N.  <span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px  #B8B8B8;"> petrarchan47 คุ  ก   19:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Shannon limit
It's really not that surprising that 5G in the existing bands does not currently do much better than 4G in terms of throughput: 4G technology already approaches the Shannon limit. Where 5G begins to shine is in the higher bands, with much more abundant bandwidth and shorter range, and hence greater frequency reuseability. We should have a discussion of this in the article, appropriately sourced. There's a good discussion of this here. -- The Anome (talk) 12:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Daveburstein (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC) Added lede as requested. Numerous updates based on recent field results. Much more needed. Please help.

speed or frequency
There is a recent edit changing "speed" to "frequency". Does this make sense? There is much discussion about "high speed internet" connections, but none about high frequency. They are connected, but not so simply. Digital communications are often described in terms of bit rate, which also might be described as speed. For a given modulation method, the bit rate is proportional to the frequency bandwidth in use. Radio communications systems require a carrier frequency greater, often much greater, than the system bandwidth. It is not unusual to use a frequency value when a bit rate is needed. This is especially true with more complicated modulation methods. Gah4 (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean this. It has since been reverted back to "frequency". I think what's intended here is Bandwidth (signal processing). ~Kvng (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

NR and 5G Core
Shouldn't some reference be made to the difference between a network being "5G" because it uses New Radio RAT and a "full" 5G service that includes a fully deployed 5G Core (which is needed for things like network slicing, edge computing, etc. which are mentioned here)?

Some sources:

https://www.rfglobalnet.com/doc/g-core-network-architecture-network-functions-and-interworking-0001

https://www.gsma.com/futurenetworks/wiki/5g-implementation-guidelines/

https://www.ericsson.com/en/reports-and-papers/ericsson-technology-review/articles/simplifying-the-5g-ecosystem-by-reducing-architecture-options

Effectively there's "5G" for subscribers - faster mobile internet - but the rest of 5G technology isn't as widespread/has a separate dependency. -- 213.160.140.100 (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Hard to understand
The sentence written are very tough to understand can you make it more simple. Leoshaji (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Verizon 5G
Hello! Editors involved in editing the 5G article might be interested in requests at Talk:Verizon Wireless and Talk:Verizon Communications to update Verizon's 5G efforts. As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to review my work and make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)