this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2023
487 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

59587 readers
5454 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] highenergyphysics 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Back when 5G cellular was first rolling out, a professor brought in a Qualcomm senior level manager and the topic was how 6G was being developed for long distance low latency capabilities.

How much of that was industry bullshit, no idea but it sounds like they had a pulse on the tech now that we hear about it years later.

[–] samsepi0l 10 points 10 months ago (2 children)

And 5G is mostly ass anyway. I feel like LTE is faster and EASILY more reliable everywhere I am. If I lose power at my house, I can barely send text only messages in any app.

[–] PalmTreeIsBestTree 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I am still using LTE because it always works and is plenty fast for what I need to do on a mobile device. 5G also uses more battery too.

[–] TheRealKuni 5 points 10 months ago

What phone are you using? My first 5G phone didn’t support midband 5G, and yeah, my experience was similar. Lowband 5G was maybe slightly faster than LTE, but wasn’t worth the lower battery life, higher heat, and spottier performance that was associated with early 5G radios.

Now I’ve got a phone with midband 5G support and midband 5G kicks the shit out of LTE.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The lowest latency links right now are already wireless point to point links.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

My PhD in electrical engineering.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Care to elaborate or point to a reliable source?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

It should be fairly intuitive. Sending electromagnetic radiation through copper or fiber will add physical distance versus a direct line of sight link. And the refractive index of light in the atmosphere is significantly lower, so the radiation actually propagates faster. Over long distances, those microseconds will add up.

The best example of this is the stock exchange in Chicago (and elsewhere) uses a low latency microwave link to save several milliseconds over the fiber links.