Quadrupling the transmission power of 3G networks will lead to famine, mass starvation and scurvy for all, not to mention annoying cameramen and the MoD, if the hysterical response to Ofcom's new proposals is to be believed. The terrifying prospect of "a slow and painful death" is among the reasoned responses to Ofcom's proposal …
How will it impact me?
If they crank up the power can someone tell me how many extra layers of tin foil I will need for my hat in the future?
just move to a point twice the distance from the emitter and you will be as safe as before.
ah, and tinfoil does not work well unless you wrap your whole body. if you try this please send us the pictures.
Increased coverage? Unlikely.
Fewer rural transmitters operating at higher power equals lower running costs. Coverage could actually drop.
Can anyone think of an alternative comms technology?
...not the bees! If it gets me rural 3G coverage without paying thru the nose to do it for them with a femtocell its fine by me.
Where do these people learn how to use the internet? My hats off to a Mrs Wright.
"This is (in my opinion very stupidly) discounting the rising cost
of health care for the increasing level of sickness and disease in our society - not to mention the criminal and terrorist activities which are greatly enhanced by these devices."
...for the daily mail headlines.
We're all going to die!
It's not simple
No matter if your transmitter is PERFECT, receivers on neighbouring bands will have limited out of band rejection that varies with frequency. Sometimes receivers at IF image frequencies (0.07MHz to 400Mhz lower or higher depending on IF and actual Receive band).
With the lack of 3G data capacity for iThings MID and smartGadgets, they need more bases, closer together.
There should ALWAYS be power limits. Why should other people have to replace ALL their receivers with ones that have much larger and more expensive filters?
RF screened goggles to avoid cataracts, obviously,
What about the mobile power?
I don't see why this will be much use to them if the power going back to the base station from your mobile is still at the same level. Surely your phone will need a similar 6dB increase to match?
Also, the increase of 62dBm to 68dBm equates to a power increase from about 1.5kW to 6.3kW, which is a huge amount of power for an antenna to handle at 2GHz and I doubt there's any that would take it. Perhaps someone in the know can rid me of my worries?
A few killowatts?
Am I the only one who remembers the Radio 1 ads when they went FM 'One million watts of music power ...' Where were tin foilies then?
title, required, one (1).
I think it would be good to see whether the argument the filters have improved enough is true enough for the other spectrum users' needs, not merely for the operators to propose this handy dandy plan. Otherwise, well, how are the frequencies here used different than the multimegawatts pumped into the air for FM radio? If these have the same effect as the microwave does, then perhaps it's not such a good idea, but here scientific method applied to fact finding is perhaps the more prudent approach. It would save some spittle and PLEASE THINK OF THE CAPITALS.
As to bees, I agree it is a very bad thing indeed they're dying off, and it would be even better if we knew why, and best still if we could stop it and restore the bee population to something less pitiful. We do need the bees, yes.
So far I haven't seen any evidence it's the 3g gsm waves that did it. Can the good professor share his results perhaps?
It's the loudness wars ....
Vodafone are missing the point if they think this increase (from 1.5kW to around 6.3kW) will actually make a significant difference to their coverage. 3G using frequencies around 2GHz and propagation is pretty much line-of-sight. If you can see the mast, it will work, if you can't, it won't. Actual emitted power doesn't make much difference except on the fringe of the service area (which will be in another cell anyway).
If I wanted to be cynical, I would say that the point of this power hike is to ensure that the handsets find their network first - though I won't suggest the idea is to de-sense them sufficiently to miss the network the user is subscribed to.
And although I'm not a tin-foil-hat type, I can't say I'd be awfully happy being very close to a source of similar frequency to, and three to four times the output of, a microwave oven.
- Review Apple iPhone 6: Looking good, slim. How about... oh, your battery died
- Review + Vid Apple iPhone 6 Plus: What a waste of gorgeous pixel density
- +Comment EMC, HP blockbuster 'merger' shocker comes a cropper
- Moon landing was real and WE CAN PROVE IT, says Nvidia
- 46% of iThings slurp iOS 8: What part of this batt-draining update didn't you like?