5G: The Trouble With the New Phone Network

[@llamallama1509]

I accidentally watched this at 360p and didn't notice till after it had finished. You don't need extreme high definition on a small screen.

[@Sebastien_5577]

I look all videos at 360p too, it's really suffisant. I look only video about on "age of empire" at 480p.

[@AvoidsPikes-]

360p? Uh....no.

[@samuelbucher5189]

Speak for your self. I can easily tell the difference between 1080p and 720p.

[@joegranata7936]

Most of things we are nowadays unable to give up I would have called pretty unnecessary 10 years ago. It's indeed needed a big change of perspective where finally we decide what we absolutely need.

[@hoodio]

5g isn't necessary for phones, i get 270mbps down, 40 up and 30ms at home on 4g, i have no idea how you'd need more

[@LabyrinthMike]

To be honest, I thought 4G was fast enough.

[@rajeev_kumar]

4G is sufficiently fast for most of my work.

[@Volodimar]

If it ever present, I personally struggle to catch good reception even in urban environment. They better to improve existing network rather than implementing new one 😠

[@arctic_haze]

I remember taking a part in a meeting around 1991 where an engineer bragged the university has now a 19200 baud rate connection to the Internet and it will be enough for years to come. As I heard him, I was sure he was talking nonsense. It turned out, I was right.

[@IanSlothieRolfe]

The problem with 4G is that the data rate you see varies wildly with how much it is being used locally. So the rates you see advertised are maximums. I rely on 4G and much of the time it is OK for normal web usage - then it will grind to a halt if there's a lot of local usage, a national event that people are watching on their mobile devices, or the moon is in the wrong phase (i.e. for unknown reasons).

[@ZotyLisu]

4G is not fast enough, try working a job where you download tens of GBs everyday and live in a place without fiber

[@rebeccaschade3987]

Whenever science comes into conflict with money, money wins. It's how it always works.

[@TheMightyShell]

How it always works in capitalism

[@faza553]

Political power SCIENCE fueled by data obtained from science methodology?

[@barryon8706]

@@TheMightyShell Lysenkoism

[@wokelion1573]

Thank the euros and their murderous greeeeed.😠

[@liam3284]

That is more US politics.

[@hikingpete]

I'm definitely in favour of hard limits on leakage around scientifically important frequencies. These frequencies are discrete and well defined. The impact on commercial utilization is tolerable, and the loss of the scientific utilization is not. I'd say this one is pretty clear cut, even if it means a trip back to the drawing board. I like the apparent European approach - just hold off on auctioning those bands for now.

[@nova_supreme8390]

Considering that those scientific measurements are essentially a public utility that is used to enhance safety of the public so commercial use should come secondary in consideration anyways.

[@yangpachankis]

How about antimatter in the EM frequencies? I think the current frequency schemes have some limitations. Some noises are important.

[@KaiHenningsen]

@@yangpachankis "Antimatter in the EM frequencies"? Does that translate into anything real or at least understandable?

[@Pastor_virtual_Robson]

I'm definitely NOT in favour of hard limits on leakage around scientifically important frequencies

[@yangpachankis]

@@KaiHenningsen if you do astronomical observations, you will see the data noises. And those noises in the microwave background contain some portions of antimatter. Saw another comment about the designs for amplitude for transmission data integrity. Those are the antimatter contribution in the EM spectrum they tried to overcome. Stephen Hawking talked about it in one of his lectures introducing Roger Penrose. I saw it recently… only that the Big Bang theory made his insights hidden from the scientific consensus.

[@YellowCable]

4g and similar stuff is just fine, which is a problem for a whole industry that is predicated on producing and selling new technology with faster and faster transfer rates. At some point (probably already) they will have to arbitrarily change the technology with little to no consumer benefit

[@9852323]

Definitely already. It’s been happening with smartphones for the past 5 years atleast. Nobody with a brain is buying a new phone every 2/3 years like they used to because the innovation and big upgrades in speed and processing power are minimal at best.

[@TyMoore95503]

You know, a really, really simple solution here is just "switch" out that one 5G channel directly above the 24 GHz water vapor channel: very little degradation of databandwidth in the network and less interference... Thank you Sabine for another fascinating production! 👍

[@AvoidsPikes-]

Hopefully it's that simple and not something like California having a water shortage crisis while positioned on the coast of the largest ocean in the world 🌊

[@StringerNews1]

An even simpler solution is to understand that "5G" isn't a frequency.

[@Fs3i]

@@StringerNews1 we understand that, thanks. 5G channels, however, are a frequency range.

[@TyMoore95503]

A narrow band switchout could be implemented with a simple software patch...a compromise that most including the 5G advocates and the companies that already have billions invested could live with.

[@StringerNews1]

@@Fs3i if you're channeling Queen Victoria with the "royal we", then no, it doesn't mean that. But thanks for saying nothing germane to the topic.

[@marcmckenzie5110]

In 2013 we discovered I had a “terminal” case of Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. My baseline PET scan, prior to treatment, showed a dense inguinal tumor the exact size and orientation of the antenna in my iPhone (per engineering teardown). I had always kepy my phone in my pants pocket juxtaposed to where we found the tumor. No one in the medical community wanted to report this black-and-white finding to state or federal regulatory agencies. The reason, they stated, was that the telecom industrial complex was too powerful and wealthy - nothing would come of it, other than risk to my doctors. I was fighting for life for several years, so we had no appetite to pursue the matter. Big money doesn’t care about the everyday person, and their corruption has now gripped governments. We beat cancer, though sequelae has left me severely handicapped, home bound, and alone. You can bet that I rarely put a cellphone near my body, and then only briefly.

[@julieann4762]

Wow, just saying I'm sorry to hear this. That sounds sad to hear you say handicapped, home bound and alone. Besides Sabine's channel, I listen to Jeffrey Mishlove's shows quite a bit, you might enjoy it. Totally different vibe. Thank you for the cautionary cell phone story.

[@TLguitar]

Informative and well made video! Just one error I noticed at 15:55: you referred to the FCC's 35dBW-higher limit compared to the WMO's as "more than 30 orders of magnitude above", but every 10 decibels are a power of ten, not every 1 decibel (≈ *1.2589). Thus it should have been "more than _3 orders of magnitude_ above".

[@beeble2003]

I was about to comment exactly the same thing. I'm hoping she just mis-spoke. Any scientifically literate person should immediately see that a power increase of 30 orders of magnitude couldn't possibly be correct. That's roughly equivalent to the World Metereological Organization saying "We'd like you to limit this to the power of a single LED, please" and the USA saying "Eh, we'll limit it to 250 Suns. That'll be OK." (By the way, I'm not suggesting that Sabine isn't scientifically literate. Just that it's a really bad mistake for a scientifically literate person to make.)

[@TLguitar]

@@beeble2003 Yeah, because this is pretty basic I wonder if it has something to do with a language mistake between German and English. Of course one might define an order of magnitude using a non-base-10 power, but this is definitely not the case with the decibel scale, even if each base-10 magnitude is "divided" to its 10th root.

[@aartadventure]

I was about to comment the same. Great video otherwise.

[@trent_carter]

This mistake comforts me as it means Sabine doesn’t know everything, which I was starting to become convinced she did.

[@James_Knott]

I noticed that too.

[@CycleWerkz]

5G is a transmission format, not a frequency band. It can be used on any band. There is nationwide 5G coverage on the 600MHz band

[@porcorosso4330]

It is designed to work with the higher frequencies. The performance of 5g at the lower frequencies are not as good.

[@CycleWerkz]

@@porcorosso4330 It depends on which performance characteristics you value at the moment. My point is that all the issues discussed in this video are a function of the 2.5GHz band, not the 5G format. All the formats were designed to work in all the available bands. Higher bands are able to transfer higher data rates, and the 5G format is able to take full advantage of that. Conversely, higher bands radio propagation performance is much worse by nearly every measure.

[@hans-joachimbierwirth4727]

@@porcorosso4330 Its definitions and regulations include higher frequencies. That doesn't mean anybody will burst mm waves into your toilette.

[@James_Knott]

@@porcorosso4330 5G has about a 25% performance improvement over 4G in the same spectrum.

[@thattimestampguy]

Wave Channels have limits 2:21 Limits exist 3:56 Millimeter Waves 4:30 1/107 studies was well designed in figuring out 5G affect or no affect on human skin 5:02 Research weaknesses - small sample size - Poor control of environmental parameters 6:17 Data and Word 6:53 Water Vapor in the atmosphere 💧 🛰 7:40 23.80GHZ - the frequency satellites use to look for water 7:47 The Issue: The 5G Band causes Leakage and Noise 🕳💥 8:19 ☀️🌧⛈🌦🌈💧💨Weather Forecasts have improved since 1980, 80% -> 98% accuracy. Due to better computers and satellites 📡 🛰 9:20 Water Vapor sensitivity Noise in highly populated cities interfere 10:42 🌀Hurricane tracking could weaken 11:17 THATS ABSURD, 5G doesn’t do that. 13:01 Research found…. 14:23 Augmented Reality 6G, instant availability 14:45 Incredibly Fast 15:45 -20dBW 16:05 Scientists get to a new discovery 1st, people catch up, causes interference 16:35 Work harder in Design [Research and Development] to fix problems, so Rollout of new tech can go smoothly.

[@ArneBab]

Thank you!

[@hikerJohn]

This should be pinned to the top.

[@dailynotes2845]

The lord has presented; and we have accepted

[@DocBree13]

Nicely done - thanks!

[@Eagleizer]

11:46 It's Trump's fault... :p

[@thecarpenter645]

Love your videos. The way you explain things is quite clear and understandable. Just a small trivial thing is we don’t have squirrels 🐿 in New Zealand we have a few kiwi birds they’ll just have to watch that instead.

[@flagmichael]

As Neman Syed pointed out above, "By the time you see them, it's already too late..." Dun dun DUN!

[@2bfrank657]

... And no, we don't want any squirrels either in case anyone was wondering. We already have too many exotic species making a mess of our environment.

[@olic7266]

@Mysterious_old_geek what does the acronym stand for?

[@samuelmullins271]

@@2bfrank657 Was it New Zealand where the baboon riots were criminally organized? Are you aware of which colonial additives resulted in plant and animal extinctions? Rumor is that some endangered lifeforms were unique to New Zealand. Natural causes are not the accusable bastards. Merely foreigners' only were probably the only essential conspirators causing your environmental muck-ups. Not saying all city-slickers share your naivete. But it does look like Naturalist farmers of scientific compatibility are NOT so typically shallow. What I am saying is the first New Zealand inhabitants did not cause such calamities prior to ARROGANT international invaders.

[@laaradee]

Your videos/ attitude gives me hope - that sanity and ‘clear ‘ thinking still exists! 🙏

[@markusbroyles1884]

Yea, the grumpy thing and experimenting on us all instead of doing the basic testing beforhand is extremely troubling. Great essay Sabine THANKS !!

[@Michael-qy1jz]

Yep, it was testified in congress that Zero tests have been done to look.at health effects!! Invest in Cancer Centers. They are Sneaking these 5G towers all around Sarasota/Bradenton every night hoping people don't notice. Like a big prison being built around us

[@Cobbido]

Reminds you of something else doesn't it

[@JayVal90]

@@Cobbido We’re allowed to talk about it on YT now 😂

[@piscialassini]

@@Cobbido kind of...

[@alihenderson5910]

I'm sure if we just follow "the science", everything will be fine.

[@mheermance]

Harmonics are a well known problem in transmitter design, and the higher the power output the higher the harmonic amplitudes. Designers use low pass filters to reduce harmonic amplitudes, but that only attenuates them as a source of interference. In addition the more data you transmit on a channel the broader the sidebands become. So I'm inclined to agree with the leakage concerns. The 5G industry should be well aware of these concerns since this stuff is taught to any EE major in their communication systems course.

[@rwesenberg]

Also amateur radio licencies

[@mheermance]

@@rwesenberg true. Hams are well aware of these problems and work to eliminate them from their homemade equipment.

[@hugegamer5988]

Resonant frequency is important across all science and engineering. For example, the same math (or close enough) is used to determine if your car will rattle apart just driving normally, or in simulating molecular interactions. A flywheel and inductor are governed by exactly the same second order differential equations and are both used to smooth out vibrations identically in mechanical and electrical systems.

[@StringerNews1]

There's the not insignificant fact that harmonics only occur _above_ the fundamental frequency. When the alleged interference frequency is _above_ the one supposedly in jeopardy, harmonics just don't magically reach _down_ in frequency to interfere. True, some frequency at half, or a third of the frequency may generate harmonics that interfere, but then blaming "5G" for that is not at all honest.

[@mheermance]

@@StringerNews1 I'm guessing that it is harmonics or sideband interference. I did a Google search trying to find more details on the frequencies and proposed mechanism, but the links I found didn't have any details.

[@taylankammer]

Oh man, these claims about "6G/7G/etc. will be so fast that you'll never have wait times" are frustrating me so much. The faster hardware becomes, the more bloated people make their software, so in the end you still have annoying wait times. Just look at the state of the Internet today. So many ad banners, fonts being loaded from ten different sources, auto-playing videos, and other crap. If a website only contained the text and graphics we actually want to see, things would already load instantly with 4G levels of speed. It's the same with software performance. CPUs, RAM, and SSDs have gotten ridiculously fast compared to what we had in the past, and yet you still have programs hanging and taking long times to load, because they're packed with so much nonsense that nobody needs.

[@unsettledroell]

On the other hand, we can play games in 4K 120Hz now, which was absolutely not possible 5 years ago. Also, we have services such as Netflix, which would be close to impossible 15 years ago. So the question is really, what do we expect to need in 5 years? Answer is, ultra low latency, high capacity and ultra reliable communications. 5G attempts to tackle all 3... the mmWave part is really only a slice of the network which takes care of the capacity part.

[@1GTX1]

@@unsettledroell I was watching footage of concerts and endless number of videos on ''google videos'' more than 15 years ago, and grew up watching documentaries on youtube in 2007 and latter, and even some movies, Anything you can imagine was uploaded and streamed, even though it was in parts. So i'm not that impressed with Netflix.

[@unsettledroell]

@@1GTX1 and you could count the pixels too is my guess?

[@1GTX1]

@@unsettledroell 720p was introduced already at the end of 2008 and 1080p in 2009

[@unsettledroell]

@@1GTX1 and you had a 4K capable GPU back then?

[@MrEddy-bm3eo]

Dear Sabine, clouds are not made of water vapor, but of water (small water droplets), which is why we can see them with our own eyes. Thank you for this video! Roughly a year, I realized that weather forecasts are getting noticeably worse, especially in regards to rain forecasts.

[@3dguy839]

Just like Fat David E. He's made of of tiny Fat cells not Fat Mary and Fat Dave

[@lillihawell2968]

Correct, but (in this video) she does not claim that clouds are made of water vapor. She does mention the amount of water vapor in clouds as compared to in the lower atmosphere, but of course a cloud can also have water vapor dissolved in the air between droplets.

[@jonasdaverio9369]

@@lillihawell2968 I have no idea how this work, but I would guess satellites measure both water and water vapor. Or do they just see water vapor?

[@lillihawell2968]

@@jonasdaverio9369 Personally I also have little idea how it works; as far as I know, satellites don't directly measure either of those; instead, they measure the intensity of certain EM wavelengths, and different intensities correspond to different temperatures, and different temperatures correspond to different altitudes since the atmosphere varies in temperature as you go up or down. Then there's one range of wavelengths for measuring clouds and such, and another range for measuring water vapor specifically; the amount of water vapor etc. can then be inferred based on the measured intensities (e.g. if the intensity reading indicates a high altitude, that means there's probably a lot of water vapor, because the light is being reflected back from a high altitude, meaning there's probably a lot of water vapor piled up in the area) I assume the two wavelengths react with a measurable difference to the presence of water droplets, so they can probably make some kind of calculation to separately determine how much water is in droplets vs. vapor, but really meteorology is way beyond me and I have no idea how they figure these things out with any level of confidence It's also possible Sabine did mean the water in cloud droplets (rather than water vapor, as she said), but I am nitpicky so I assume she meant what she said

[@benahaus]

Hmmm, after condensation, yes, but before condensation it's evapotranspirational "vapor".

[@fistpunder]

16:35 Hits the proverbial nail on the head about how things are designed and rolled out. Design technology with the real world in mind.

[@spacematter431]

10:03 Sabine part of the reason why like watching your videos -aside from the levels of sanity- is because of the quality of burns you distribute

[@LaughterOnWater]

At 3:08... 6:38... Love the meta millimeter wave wave... 🤣 Once again, thanks for simplifying a complex subject. SH, you are amazing!

[@RavingMad]

Thanks Dr. SH for another wonderful video on this topic. I would like to add my own thoughts as typical of any couch dwelling expert who watches a bunch of KZbin videos: These generations of technologies absolutely need to be developed. This will be essential in the future. While it has many earthly advantages, it will be much more essential for interplanetary communications. However, 1) There's a capitalistic play here which is causing a bit of an issue. Scientific research and development now a days seem more tied to corporate bottomline than ever before. Corporations (such as AT&T, T-Mobile, Vodafone, Telenor etc.) needed 5G faster than the scientific community and research facilities could have it refined and properly evaluated. These corporations also sit in the board of these research organizations and support the research with actual funding. Therefore they have the full control of what gets put out and when. Just a basic example various 3G technologies are actually still getting refined under the guise of 5G. All through 4G we were mostly getting a set of 3G technologies refined every so often. Now that many of these companies have deployed "5G" the reality is that, 4G is finally being deployed in its full glory while 1 OR 2, 5G specific technology has also been deployed in a few specific tower of the highest density and most convenient (for deployment) area. This makes these corporations not liars while showing the public that they are constantly innovating and are on top of their game. I don't see this pattern changing I.e. we'll see 5G technologies to start roll out en masse under the guise of 6G and be fully refined by the time 7G is around. 2) Our phones saying 5/4/3G does not say anything about what technology it's actually using. The wireless carriers along with the phone manufacturers decide what the phones report to us. 3) The most important gain from generation upon generation of wireless communication technology actually has been the improvement in latency not the bandwidth. Of course bandwidth has improved significantly, but latency is most important factor to determine the quality of a communication channel. This is not easy to grasp because most of us are not well versed in communication protocols and their wireless kins. High latency has severe impact on how well these protocol functions. For example it's possible for the latency to get so high that the actual communication comes to a crawl while bandwidth remains up there, this is because bad data packets are jamming the channel. Analogy: let's say I only speak Japanese and another person I'm going to communicate with speaks only Italian. I can directly speak Japanese to this person and there will be 0 communication. I could remove noise and be in a quite room with this person and speak as loudly as necessary but there's 0 communication. I won't understand the Italian and this person won't understand Japanese. This is high bandwidth but extremely high latency. I could have a Japanese to English translator and other person could have English to Italian translator. In the same low noise environment, now we have managed to reduce the latency down to high but tolerable level. we could have communication but despite potential for very fast communication our translator bottleneck causing latency is not 0. Of course anyone can figure out how to improve the latency in this scenario. The thing to realize is that it's impossible to fully eliminate this latency for our actual wireless communication scenario, because: a) we are not able to eliminate noise, and wireless medium will always have unpredictable amount of noise, increasing frequency of the radio waves to the point that it becomes as close to flat line as possible is the way to eliminate noise at which point we've transferred over to straight line Fibre optics channel. However, I think the future physicists will be able to solve this problem of medium. b) we have to always have translation layer because at the level of usable communication we are using disparate systems and protocols (which make up the internet)

[@suprememasteroftheuniverse]

You mean fake information. Thousands of studies about frequencies in the IIIIIG range were deleted from the PubMed, THE BIGGEST MEDICAL RESEARCH REPOSITORY ONLINE. KZbin censors IIIIIG content. My comments were deleted six times. All the accepted research on the safety of IIIIIG advocates it safety but are anti scientific. Government says it's not to worry so panic.

[@jimf671]

Some influential engineering organisations have already called a halt on the ever upward migration of mobile network frequency band and essentially say that 5G is a failed concept and the ambition for 6G should be to find new ways to move the data without those higher frequencies.

[@Chriswsm]

In the UK the 5G frequencies are on the same frequencies previously used by television stations for many years. TV broadcasts are at a higher power level than 5G transmitters because there were fewer of them and they were further apart. You could fry an egg on a TV transmitter. You can't even warm your hands on a 5G transmitter. There has not been any publicly announced massive increase of any illnesses that corresponds with TV frequencies in the UK over the years so I have no concerns. My 5G enabled phone will arrive tomorrow as my my area is enabled and my 4 year old Pixel 2 is on its last legs.

[@steveb9542]

What frequencies are you talking about here? Analogue tv broadcasts were at much lower frequencies (3.5GHz) IIRC it was 3G that used those frequencies.

[@wopmf4345FxFDxdGaa20]

@@steveb9542 5G has large amount of frequencies, some are low (600 MHz), some are high. Here is some of them; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G_NR_frequency_bands

[@alihenderson5910]

"Precious"😵

[@engineerinnewyork]

@@steveb9542 Flatly untrue

[@steveb9542]

@@engineerinnewyork care to elaborate?

[@joshuascholar3220]

Most of T-Mobile's 5G is at 600 MHz. 5G isn't a specific wavelength, it's a protocol.

[@ldbarthel]

The protocol defines the ranges of frequencies that can be used-that's part of the hardware design. Otherwise you could just use an old Nokia on a 5G network. FTR, T-Mobile uses 600 MHz as it's primary 5-G band. It's supplemented by 39 GHz in Las Vegas and 28 GHz in the other five markets.

[@justvideos3216]

And 5G is using a lot more energy than 4G, because you need much more small receivers to cover the area. Furthermore there are nearly no use cases which really need 5G except military use cases. (What is the real purpose for introducing the new technology)

[@isakjohansson7134]

Finding and prosecuting dissidence through information gathering and monetary transactions. When cash has been banned. "For our safety".

[@alihenderson5910]

5g is for 'them' not us.

[@unsettledroell]

Short sighted, the small towers use less power than the big ones. 4G towers can easily eat up 2kW or more just for the RF generation and transmission, 5G panels are closer to ~100W for small stations.

[@isakjohansson7134]

@@unsettledroell Yeah but you need more small ones than large ones

[@Grk149]

I do a lot of things from my phone and other mobile devices but I have never felt that 4G was slow for any of my use cases, even the heaviest ones. Even now I turn off 5G, too much battery drain for no observable difference

[@BullCheatFR]

What mmWave really does is allow much higher density. You can serve faster data to a lot more people in a small area. 5G includes mmWave, among other technologies. 5G itself mostly allow network operators to reduce cost and complexity. In a lot of cases, 4G/LTE works perfectly fine and the transition to 5G does not include mmWave. But not everywhere.

[@johnwolf2829]

Some things actually do change in this stagnant century. I remember hearing on New Years day in 2000 that half the people in the world had never made or received a Phone call in their lives. Ain't exactly the case now, is it?

[@stevemolloy1289]

No that's, still pretty much true,get outa your bubble

[@hakan8997]

And every electronic device that had a older data chip would stop working at midnight Dec 31

[@angrydoggy9170]

Biggest problem I have with 5G is the usefulness. Than again, I’m not bothered about not having the ability to watch or stream stuff all the time. If anything, I rather enjoy being off grid.

[@TheZachary86]

5G is mostly for system wide operations not the average user. Think autonomous vehicles, autonomous manufacturing, remote operations of machines from office

[@Hideyoshi1991]

how're you using internet if you're "off grid"

[@ericvulgate]

'Off grid' means different things. Could just be no water or electricity. I'm off grid and have internet on my phone. There's no water or electricity here I charge stuff with my truck or solar batteries.

[@angrydoggy9170]

@@ericvulgate I mostly charge my devices with my wood stove.

[@angrydoggy9170]

@@Hideyoshi1991 Sometimes buddy, sometimes.

[@samhianblackmoon]

Yet another excellent video, love your channel Sabine 👊🏽❤️

[@amazingdecks1]

I'm afraid the weather forecast issue is a canard. It's my experience in Canada as an outdoor contractor that weather forecasts haven't improved since I was a kid 60 years ago. I remember a farmer looking up into the sky and I asked him if he could forecast the weather. He said he'd been studying the sky every morning for 70 years so I could rely on him. He said after all this experience, damned if he knew what would happen. Nothing's changed.

[@MarkHunterSolo]

Very informative and very relevant Sabine - thanks!

[@timsexton]

I agree, the design stage for each new iteration is when everyone (including the scientists) should be involved in the discussion to have their concerns heard, evaluated, etc. Hearings about their complaints right before or even during an upgrade rollout is a clear indication there is little, if any regard for scientists' concerns by decision makers & planners in the wireless industry. *_TRUST !!_*

[@leonewton383]

Trust or Sue the globalists if their tech causes injury...

[@MikeJones-wp2mw]

These are the same people that told us that smoking was good for us. That kids that ate candy were healthier than those that didn't. The only thing they've proven is that they think we are all idiots, and we'll believe whatever they tell us. It might actually be the thing that they've been the most correct about actually.

[@2bfrank657]

@@MikeJones-wp2mw what has been proven is that there are good scientists, and bad scientists.

[@gaburieruR]

It was also science who discovered tobacco use and excess sugar is bad for us. Science has it's limitations, and new studies always come out. Scientists are not idiots, they just say what the experimental data demonstrate, not eternal truths

[@Stephen-vu2gk]

Perhaps the leakage from 5g antennas could be a feature and not a bug. A clever algorithm could turn the entire 5g network into a water vapor detector. Not easy to implement but worth considering.

[@Caveman57]

This is a great channel! Sabine is a great host. Lots of helpful and interesting information prepped with humor and a bit of irony and sarcasm. So glad I found it!

[@clermeil]

I love that Sabine punctuates her typical staid teutonism with bits of subtle but hilarious humor such as 3:27.

[@jamesstevens2362]

Thanks, I missed that bit. Too busy trying to see if she does pluck her eyebrows. 😉

[@knightrider585]

5G also risks disrupting air plane landing systems. I guess there will be ever increasing issues in lots of areas as we fill up the electromagnetic spectrum with more noise.

[@karlakirkpatrick2214]

you mean it's like in the beginning of the cell phone service.

[@stargazer7644]

Old news. That has been resolved. Please try and keep up. Thanks.

[@knightrider585]

@@stargazer7644 So will they resolve the issue where we are suppo posed to turn off electronic devices? j/k I know that is just another part of the safety theatre of flying.

[@stargazer7644]

@@knightrider585 Actually that one has a basis in fact. A simple FM radio receiver (not even a transmitter) can completely knock out a plane's navigation receiver that listens to the VOR navigation system. This is easily demonstrated. Put one FM radio on a station at the top of the FM band. Put another one on a frequency 10.7 MHz lower (an analog tuned radio is easiest for this). The lower one will completely jam the reception in the upper one. Aviation frequencies are just above the FM radio band, and are very susceptible to this. This happens because even receivers have an oscillator inside that transmits at low power. Before the days of handheld electronics, the airline ban was simply on portable AM/FM radios. They just expanded it over time to anything that receives or transmits. Radio advertising companies actually take advantage of this effect by putting devices next to busy roadways listening for these signals above the FM radio band. This allows them to tell what FM radio frequency cars that pass by are listening to. They use that information to estimate how many people are listening to a particular radio station for ranking.

[@knightrider585]

@@stargazer7644 Yet out of the millions of electronic devices that are not turned off on flights every year this has never been demonstrated to cause a problem in practice.

[@Gubby-Man]

I think you should at least mention that there’s low-band 5G (400-2000Mhz), mid-band 5G (

[@StringerNews1]

You know that. I know that. But the crazy lady doesn't know that. What's worse, she doesn't seem to care.

[@Gubby-Man]

@@StringerNews1 I wouldn’t call her crazy. In fact this video was well researched and she had good valid points with some information that I didn’t know about. As a subscriber to this channel it should go without saying that I respect her. I think it’s really important to point out that most of the 5G spectrum is similar to 4G as I said in my prior comment. There are a lot of people that are against 5G as a whole and we should be better at informing them.

[@engineerinnewyork]

@@Gubby-Man Your comment regarding the fallacy of equating 5G with any frequency band is absolutely correct, and I also agree that the public needs to be well informed. Which is not what the lady here has done.

[@StringerNews1]

@@Gubby-Man well researched? Show me _any_ research, and I'll be happy to show you where it's wrong or just bogus. The science-denying crazy lady certainly hasn't shown any research. All she has done is regurgitate the same debunked claims that have been floating around since 1G AMPS first became publicly available, and saying "nuh-uh" to the real science because it doesn't fit her narrative. I give you credit, you've done some looking, even if it's marketing more than scientific knowledge. Perhaps I gave you more credit than you deserve, but it looked to me like you understood that 5G has nothing to do with frequency. The crazy lady doesn't understand that. She keeps conflating 5G with mmWave, which is the anti-5G narrative, and is not true. Ditto for the hokum about water resonance. The truth is that weather is forecast on computers, not satellites. They may seem equally mysterious and thus interchangeable if you know nothing about them, but the people that built them do know, and they rely on data not fantastic stories. You made a good point. Sabine is wrong about frequencies. What you need to do is take the next step and begin to understand the other things she's wrong about. It doesn't matter how confidently one talks, if they have no supporting evidence to back up their story, that story is baseless, and probably not true. If you like I'll go through each and every point with you.

[@hans-joachimbierwirth4727]

@@Gubby-Man Batshit crazy. She calls flat earth "theory" intelligent. Her bullshit on higher dimensions and her claims about SR are hair-raising. Respecting her translates to profound disrespect for science.

[@alsavery9306]

Did the meteorologists try to join the 5G conference in 2008 when the 5G standards started? If not, then they failed to forecast the current storm.

[@DivineLightPaladin]

Ha

[@bnielsen56]

Surely the water vapour measurements could use phase sensitive detection to eliminate background noise, if they don't already.

[@maninashed9367]

My weather app is always wrong. It's only right 98% of the time for about the next hour. This though is because we now give localised weather which can change on a daily basis due to chaos theory.

[@Lincoln_Bio]

It's almost as if new technology should be implemented by scientists rather than capitalists huh

[@warfarenotwarfair5655]

Umm no, many scientists currently are leftists and leftists by their nature are very materialistic and unethical leading to a lot of fake science approving harmful products. It takes lawsuits and government to bring companies to heel.

[@videoinformer]

Could the problem be turned into a benefit by using ubiquitous 5G equipment to make atmospheric measurements as an incidental activity during telecommunications? Surely, changing atmospheric conditions create variations in how a signal is received compared to how it was sent. From the perspective of telecommunications, atmospheric variation is a problem. But, the way in which telecom devices compensate for the problem should provide a lot of information about changing atmospheric conditions. With telecommunications being ubiquitous, they could provide a much larger data set, everywhere, compared to what NOAA could gather from specialized equipment.

[@PinataOblongata]

I like this idea, but I suspect there would be too many other variables changing the signal reception to be practical - after all, this bandwidth gets stopped by trees. That's largely because they're full of water. Guess what else is mostly water? Us.

[@svensvensson8102]

It most definitely can and this has been researched quite extensively. But there must be a compelling business case and willing participants.

[@aionceres7086]

The statement at 15:57 is mathematically not correct. The difference between -20dBW and -55dBW is NOT 30 orders of magnitude, which would be 10^(30). This solution seems reasonable, but remember that dB is a pseudo-unit which is the logarithm of the difference MULTIPLIED by TEN (if you repect that there are just 3 orders of magnitude in between). My_dB_value = 10dB*log(P_out/P_in). With P_in = 1mW, which is what you do when using dBW instead of dB, you can calculate P_out. P_out is ~3,16*10(-6) W fpr -55dBW and ~1*10(-2) W for -20 dBW. If we divide these two values we get ~3164, which is around three orders of magnitude and not 30.

[@Sadowsky46]

Reading the title I was ready to call BS, but you actually know what you are talking about! Well presented and explained facts, very interesting 👍

[@AfroGaz71]

Go to "conspiracy toonz". He shows multiple errors in her video.

[@colinjames2469]

@@AfroGaz71 thanks... I definitely will not go there.

[@MrPitbull117]

Great video, as always! I love that you pointed out that scientists say a lot of things, but you prefer the data to their words and illustrated this with old accepted “scientific” statements that we know are provably false today. 👍 That said, you then went on to seem encouraged by the upcoming experiments being conducted by the WHO. I personally would much rather see independent studies conducted by provably unbiased labs (not funded by governments or industries involved in this tech) than trust any studies conducted by the WHO which has been tied to globalist governments and crony industries and institutions.

[@flagmichael]

We will probably have to rely on animal studies. Irradiating humans in the name of science is bad practice, even when the irradiation is expected to be benign.

[@BullCheatFR]

I don't understand, the lower part of 24GHz is ISM. How come this problem hasn't come up before?

[@pseudopetrus]

I was way up in Northern Ontario and needed to find my location to get out of the bush. 3G did not work, so I turned 3G off and my phone went to edge, it took a while, but I finally got a map and location. Newer is not always better!

[@stickman-1]

Regarding the "no more wait bars" at about 15 minutes in: That's bunk. All you have to do is look at hard drive capacity. Today we have terrabytes for a few hundred dollars and we find ways of filling it in years, even months. So if you have more capacity it's human nature to use it till you run out of capacity.

[@alvarezjulio3800]

Thank you, Sabine. I really appreciate the effort it took you to deliver this piece of information.

[@dodgingrain3695]

if you want to increase data transmission rates you can also increase the effectiveness of data compression algorithms

[@svensvensson8102]

It is actually perfectly possible to use the 5G network for various sensoring applications, including measuring vapour. It can actually be a huge opportunity, not just a problem. A 5G basestation has extreme sensititvity and significant signal processing capability. This could be a new income stream for operators.

[@timmyjones1921]

I use at home 5G Antenna ' I check my emails , read the news & weather reports banking ect... , then I flip the 5G off and use lower band WiFi Go Navy to watch videos , movies , net flix ect... so I hope it's the best of two worlds with less damage if it's found that 5G has health effects on the human body.

[@justinloiacono6903]

An argument certainly worth considering. Question: Will Cellular providers be open to sharing their signal handling methodologies though, being that fundamentally better methods are a commercial advantage over their competitors?

[@justinloiacono6903]

Maybe it is better; benefiting monetarily is a great motivator for invention. Many modern benefits to science have come from the R&D investments of private companies. Consider where scientific research would be today if digital photography were not invented by Kodak's research initiatives.

[@svensvensson8102]

@@justinloiacono6903 It's more a question for equipment vendors I guess but it's a good point. The method could in principle be secret but it's accuracy would have to be trusted and proven against some kind of agreed procedure. It is also possible to protect such methods with patents. The entire 3GPP standard is in principle one big IPR swapping club. With more and more workloads moving into public infra you could perhaps even envision raw or part-processed antenna streams being provided as data, at a charge, for someone else to analyse. There are security and integrity concerns to solve of course but I think it's an exiting prospect.

[@CycleWerkz]

@@timmyjones1921 Cool, except... WIFi operates at nearly the same frequency, and/or double frequency, AND uses an almost identical transmission format.

[@matthewhuszarik4173]

To tell the amount of water in the atmosphere is based on the amount of EMF on the ground vs how much can be seen by the satellites. So 5G can be completely compensated for by monitoring terrestrial levels.

[@weststreet57]

Hi Sabine, I have followed your channel for many years. You are by far my favourite science information presenter. As you say, "science without the gobbledygook". I think it is a combination of your subject knowledge, presentation, and "dry German humour" (which I enjoy) that makes your channel such a success. The rapid advances in communication technology is astounding, but I challenge technology to live stream squirrel feeders from New Zealand from our contact lenses. 😄 I live in New Zealand and have never seen a squirrel in my lifetime. All jokes aside. Please keep feeding us with your wealth of information

[@mark7831]

💯misinformation it's bad

[@suprememasteroftheuniverse]

You mean fake information. Thousands of studies about frequencies in the IIIIIG range were deleted from the PubMed, THE BIGGEST MEDICAL RESEARCH REPOSITORY ONLINE. KZbin censors IIIIIG content. My comments were deleted six times. All the accepted research on the safety of IIIIIG advocates it safety but are anti scientific. Government says it's not to worry so panic.

[@paulkolodner2445]

Never seen a squirrel? You need better contact lenses.

[@weststreet57]

@@paulkolodner2445 You have seen squirrels in the wilderness in New Zealand?

[@paulkolodner2445]

@@weststreet57 Never. They are too far away.

[@stephenphilbin3919]

The only credible-sounding problem I'd ever heard about 5G until now, was that the 5G masts have such a high rate of power consumption, that it makes them not be economically viable.

[@henry770]

Okay, subscribing to this channel now. It’s too much fun.

[@julescircuits845]

Sabine!! We don't have squirrels in New Zealand bro... massive technical oversight right there...😆

[@michaelcoslo6497]

People who do not understand RF are making decisions on RF. I work with RF on a daily basis, and ask 99.9 percent of people about Intermodulation, noise floor and leakage, the interaction of signals and you'll get blank stares. We had the same thing when some Cellular providers swamped GPS signals while testing their transmitters. RF is a fascinating if unruly beast.

[@hansvetter8653]

Well ... one of the great Innovations of 5G networks are their smart antennas with electronically controlled antenna beams, which enables to reduce the RF power for each 5G smartphone by an order of magnitude.

[@dart3603]

Conspiracy Toonz covering this video. 😆 Check it out 👍

[@vitalyl1327]

The real atrocity with 5G is the cost of modules (especially the industrial ones), and there is no indication it'll go down any time soon.

[@bearcubdaycare]

There are two types of 5G. One uses the millimeter bands, and struggles going through walls and such, hence best when walking and cycling. Call it the New Urbanist type of 5G (but pity about using it on a bus or train). This type degrades weather forecasting (so pity about walking or cycling), also certain aviation safety systems (so pity about non Urbanist travel). Then there's the type of 5G that's in 4G-like bands, and it's, well...4G-like. Could we just start raising the digit before the G without actually changing anything? Would any user really care?

[@letMeSayThatInIrish]

I support this idea. Bump the digit once every 5 years, but don't change a damn thing. Then we can still use old equipment, focus on maintaining and debugging the existing standards and just make everything rock solid. 😄

[@tinkerstrade3553]

Now this is a conspiracy I can get behind. And the wireless companies ought to love it, more $$, less work!😄

[@StringerNews1]

Actually "5G" is a brand name, owned by the 3G Partnership Project. It has nothing to do with frequency. If 5G never came into existence, market demand would have had cellular providers using more and more spectrum anyway. This lady is clueless.

[@paulhawkins6415]

@@StringerNews1 you should try using google befor you make stupid statments. 3GPP doesnot own any "brand names" its not a company. 3GPPis an umbrella term for a number of standards organizations which develop protocols for mobile telecommunications

[@StringerNews1]

@@paulhawkins6415 thanks for the advice, but I don't really want to make stupid statements. So I'll leave that to you. If you want to claim that 5G doesn't exist because 3GPP is "not a company" I'm down with that. If 5G doesn't exist, all this fear-mongering has been about literally nothing. A complete and total hoax. Duly noted.

[@fencserx9423]

I do not believe 5 G is harmful. But the willingness to look at a conspiracy theory and say “The fact is we don’t know” to something controversial is probably the absolute rarest thing in science today. I have a lot of respect for that.

[@glypnir]

I'm an engineer. I think of my job as building little temples where that wonderful physics stuff can actually work. Physics works great in a vacuum, but not so great in the real world, so we spend trillions of dollars building things like integrated circuits to provide a nice controlled environment simple enough to be understood by physics. They've got lots of capabilities, though, our little temples. We might be able to figure out how much radiation is being emitted in a specific area and frequency range by the 5G network, so that we could then subtract it from the total emissions to figure out how much is from atmospheric moisture. It would be nice to have some engineering information, like the expected relative amounts of radiation from 5G and from the atmospheric moisture. That way we could evaluate how sensitive the system is to the 5G.

[@sandasturner9529]

To be honest, this is a type of problem that mostly started back in the ww1 era I think with the shortwave radios. I'm thinking higher frequency flying through the skies means More energy flying through in the skies hence more radiation vs traditional am/fm radio.

[@ncdave4life]

15:30 The difference between -55 dbW and -20 dbW is not 30 orders of magnitude. 10 dbW is one order of magnitude (i.e., one factor of 10×), so the difference between -55 dbW and -20 dbW is only 3½ orders of magnitude.

[@aurelienyonrac]

Are we microwaving water in the atmosphere with 5G ? I thought we where woried about climate change... Thank you

[@kedrednael]

Visible light heats up skin and water too. But we're not worried about the street lamps causing the planet to warm up. 5G communication would be the same as that probably. It's limited in power. When you focus sunlight with a magnifying glass it becomes a tremendous problem. When you put stuff in a microwave it can cook things easily. This requires a high enough concentration of the electromagnetic waves.

[@nmarbletoe8210]

If we put up floating hot dogs then we can mitigate the effect.

[@aurelienyonrac]

@@nmarbletoe8210 I remember hearing that workers where baking there hotdog on military radar. We just need hotdog suites and hotdog phone cases. I'm exited about the future now 😍

[@MainebobOConnor]

Has research begun on the Gosh-G radio band? It's said to be amazing! Thanks Sabine🙃

[@Cuyut982]

Sabine, you say scientists say lots of things and you’d prefer to see data. But why then are you so critical of 100 studies that show no health effects but uncritically parrot a NOAA employee who cites 30% accuracy loss in forecasts without any data to back up the claim?

[@nmarbletoe8210]

She showed a dozen or more reasons, directly quoting from the paper.

[@hans-joachimbierwirth4727]

@@nmarbletoe8210 I wouldn't call that bullshit "reasons".

[@nmarbletoe8210]

@@hans-joachimbierwirth4727 Yeah, fair point, the 30% loss is not backed up by published data as Sabine said and maybe we shouldn't make a deal out of it. On the other hand maybe the burden of proof is on the folks putting up the new system.

[@utkua]

How long will it take for corporations to tell people watch less videos to lessen the impact of electro magnetic pollution? Shift the blame to the people is the name of the game.

[@zer0b0t]

So let's say two or more "safe" waves overlap (as in different cell phone carriers signals), wouldn't that potentially turn it into a hazard? Do their tests check for this?

[@DazzaOnGoogle]

At 13:11 you show a map that shows the impact on temperature forecast. Interestingly, there's going to be approximately zero mm wave transmission in those shaded areas. There's not the population, and the topography is also unfavorable. mm wave deployment will be strictly in high density areas already full of noise.

[@maurywood492]

Sabine - if the 5G New Radio Frequency Range (FR2) band that disturbs atmospheric water vapor measurement is indeed problematic, there are numerous other mmWave bands defined by the 3GPPP that can and will be utilized alternatively. Your impressive deep dive on this potential interference issue is based on a very weak foundation and understanding of the wireless comms industry and its dynamics. The industry has already made major 5G deployment changes due to known interference issues with aircraft / air traffic control frequency bands. I’d suggest you spend more time on the fascinating RF data modulation innovations such as OFDMA and MIMO - incredible human efforts to asymptotically approach the physical Shannon limit of bits/Hz/sec, instead of being so negative about this critical mobile communications which has become instrumental to everyone’s daily existence.

[@MichaelRobinson-yq3rg]

At about 16 minutes: the announcer claims "thirty orders of magnitude". 30 dB is three orders of magnitude, not thirty orders of magnitude

[@rleon8183]

My newer current 5G phone is SLOWER than my prior phone. 5G is such a disappointment!

[@flagmichael]

I almost completely agree with your points. In particular, as a retired radio tech (FCC Radiotelephone licensed since 1968), and having had an 8 hour class on RF safety as part of my employment with a Fortune 100 electric company, I am pretty confident the power levels associated with 5G do not present a hazard. But... there are quantum issues. In theory we should not see melanomas from UVB; the wavelength, around 300 nm, means not much of it will get to our basal cells. But EM radiation is all quantum at heart, and UVB sure is. That means the energy levels of UVB remain the same when they reach our basal cells, even if there are many fewer quanta. That means trouble for a few percent of humans every year. What I am getting at is what you articulated: science is all about finding out, and until we find out we don't really _know_. I will still sleep well - I have other concerns on my mind, and those are not even from routinely swapping 6Ghz waveguides with the transmitters on (not good for our eyes but minimizes outage time). If I had to place a bet I would bet on no identifiable hazard, but I am not a betting man. Show me actual science.

[@thomasnaas2813]

Out here in the boondocks we don't get no stinking 5G. We are lucky to have any G at all and in fact many of us are still using 4F, rotary phones, tin cans with string, and sometimes just tossing bricks with notes attached as we drive by.

[@patrickr9416]

I hate it when a scientist says “there is no data to suggest” or “there is no reason to believe.” It’s essentially saying that an absence of data supports the proposition. How is that in any way a scientific perspective? If there are many high-quality studies that have failed to find any evidence of, say, a harmful effect of something, then a lack of evidence is meaningful. But a lack of evidence without trying very hard to find any is just not knowing.

[@olgaszklarska5773]

Setting Michio Kaku's ideas of multiverse at the same level as "cigarettes are healthy" or "alcohol does not pass through placenta", a delicate way of doing disputes :D

[@James_Knott]

With cigarettes, the big problem was the tobacco denying research that show smoking caused cancer. The same is happening with the fossil fuel industry and climate change.

[@mikereherman5554]

Last year forcasts for my area where one degree off lately I have noticed there off two sometimes Three degrees

[@fredbloke3218]

The power of a radio signal decreases as an inverse square with distance from the source but the voltage/ information content at the receiver decreases linearly else radio would be impossible, 5g harm studies have only been based on power levels...

[@bjorndunderbeck]

I dont understand what is wrong with 4g? apart from coverage issues,I see everyone face down in their phones everywhere as it is.

[@James_Knott]

@bjorn dunderbeck Bandwidth and latency. 5G is better for both.

[@stevelux9854]

A technique that utilizes other portable devices to capture and re-transmit cellular voice and data sounds like it would be very easy to scan and monitor.

[@wmgthilgen]

The trouble with "5G" is the fact that though the signal can carry the amount of data it's reported to be able to. The average signal can only go about 30 meters. And has the ability to pass through absolutly nothing. Such as the walls of a building or someone simply standing between you and the source. Having to have a source of "5G" every 30 meter's isn't an option. Installing "5G" tower's every 30 meter's would make a city look like the old days when there were what was once referred to as telephone poles every where. Only the "5G" tower's wouldn't at least for a time; Have all the wires that use to hang from conventional telephone poles. But then, they having to be outside, mean's the signal's would only be available if and when on was outside.

[@CounselingTokyo]

The weather issue is a distraction from the health risks and that increase with increase GHz.

[@gaufrid1956]

We shouldn't do anything to interfere with the accuracy of weather forcasting when the climate is changing so much. Where I live in Mindanao Philippines it's good to have an idea that a severe tropical storm or a typhoon is on the way. Far fewer people die when forcasting is accurate and early.

[@Electric-Bob]

All I know is... T-Mobil took over my Sprint Cell Phone Account then turned on the 5G. I now have NO Cell Signal! 4G Sprint worked fine for a Decade.

[@Ke6wli]

I can’t wait for googleplex G. It uses evaporating microscopic black holes which should be extremely safe.

[@itaintova8309]

“Can you pass me the salt please?” 😂😂😂

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

@Sabine Hossenfelder >>> 👍👍

[@bruceinraleigh9999]

Sabine: Oh no! The difference between -20 dBW and -55 dBW is ... 35 dB. That's 10^3.5 ... or a bit more than 3 orders of magnitude. Not 30. (Oops.)

[@aldouglas9326]

Imagine when the people find out that 5 g doesn't exist I recommend using z wave one eight of the battery use compared to wifi it's easy to bamboozle when you don't know

[@angelamcclune5265]

Thank you for explaining this complex situation.

[@msway836]

Wooohoo all we need is more Radiation in the Air, for what Ive read this version is only a Upgraded 4g version and incapable of a 5g increase with so many problems...

[@pugowner1347]

Just because a new "idea" is come up with doesn't make it a good one. But, hey, if we can make tons of cash on it before anyone figures out it sucks. RUN WITH IT, BABY!!!!

[@Winstonsmith-s9g]

Oh good the World Health Organization is on top of this,.. the ones who have declared clean drinking water is not a human right. Awesome people 👏 👍

[@recordtronic]

I love your videos. Very informative, and I like the deadpan manner in which you drop a joke or a dunk.

[@IanKemp1960]

Thank you an excellent vidio especially the part around 16 mins where you point out the tradeoffs between technology for living vs the ability to get better data to enable technology for living :-D 😀

[@steinbauge4591]

My country Norway may be a special case but here the short reach of the signal is a big problem. Most of the country is too thinly populated for masts every 50 m to be possible to invest in. Therefore it seems that a modified 4G is used outside cities as '5G'. (have no idea what this means technically)

[@stevenpace892]

Yes, I think at the design stage would be better. A "tunnel" could be made in bandwidth for scientific instruments to work. Giving up bandwidth for a few mili-seconds here and there would have negligible impact on the network.

[@tinowildenhain2324]

You would still have to have a model of how it will work before you can really do research on it. There is currently no model explaining how the millimeter waves would interact with cell functions. Given that cells are much smaller. The water vapor problem can be solved with proper encoding. That's information theory and not necessary domain of a physicist.

[@gnarlycharlie9194]

In VHF radio comma, there is a period of radio silence on the hour to allow for faint Mayday calls to be heard. Could 5G networks have brief periods of silence to allow accurate satellite measurements? Buffering would probably cope with this, as it does now.

[@gnarlycharlie9194]

Comma = Communications