• @highenergyphysics
    link
    English
    91 year ago

    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
      link
      English
      101 year ago

      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.

      • TheRealKuni
        link
        English
        51 year 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.

      • @PalmTreeIsBestTree
        link
        English
        5
        edit-2
        1 year 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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year 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.