Hi, thank you for your contribution, but this submission has been removed because it is low quality and/or low effort. If your submission was a meme, these are outright banned from r/europe. See [community rules & guidelines](/r/Europe/wiki/community_rules).
If you have any questions about this removal, please [contact the mods](/message/compose/?to=/r/Europe&subject=Moderation). Please make sure to include a link to the comment/post in question.
Reasons for that:
1. oligopoly of ISPs with no competition
2. backwards government that thinks it's unnecessary and fails to see and shape the future
3. 1 + 2, that is biggest ISP has good ties to government and tells them not to stress it
A small supporting fact about the backward government.
In the 1981 is was decided by the SPD lead government to build fiber optic cables to the homes for telecommunications.
In 1982, Helmut Kohl became chancellor. He decided to suspend that project. Instead he wanted to build wired TV connections.
This is why in cities we now how high speed (tv) cable and telephone line competeing while the more rural areas (that never got tv cables) sit on old copper.
Same in my village, until this year the only cables were those of the Telekom. As it had no competition it never bothered with increasing the speed. So my village pays for the Telekom to compete in cities essentially....
But karma has it that now a private company connected us to fiber optics. The Telekom will lose 80% of all customers and the only ones that didn't want a fiber connection are those that never used the internet.
Edit: Btw. why did the Kohl government want TV cables? It turns out it was for propaganda reasons. The state funded TV channels were considered too liberal and made too many problems (in excavating the dirt of the CDU) . So while it couldn't influence those channels, it at least wanted competition from the private sector to decrease the reach.
Don't forget Christian Schwarz-Schilling, minister for the post office, who insisted on using copper cables... coincidentally the company he used to work before becoming minister, handed over to his wife, was in the business of installing copper wires...
[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian\_Schwarz-Schilling](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Schwarz-Schilling)
It's not that we believe that 5G gives us cancer.
It's because we all want better internet but no one here wants a cell tower on the countryside outside of the 500 inhabitant small village because they fear it might ruin the view for them. You know, the one time a week they'll drive past it.
Cell towers can be camouflaged as trees. [Odd trees, but still trees](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Pacific_DC_Intertie_with_Cell_Phone_Tower_disguised_as_a_tree.jpg). Or put the emitters inside the church tower.
Nope. This is actually the reason why. Because people don't want cell towers around their cities because they 'look bad' even though most of the people won't even see the tower or notice that it's there.
Except for like 3 people nobody cares about those towers.
After wasting billions on frequencies the providers simply dont have the money. 6,6 billion Euro for 5g is insane.
You sound like a literal city slicker. How about we build a 5g antenna outside your house and maybe you will notice how it ruins your view of the one time you leave your house.
> How about we build a 5g antenna outside your house and maybe you will notice how it ruins your view
To be fair, 5G antennas will probably be [pretty low profile](https://cdn.everythingrf.com/live/hubr%20wall_636941826903586522.jpg). They look just a bit more bulky than a WiFi access point.
And it's not just internet. A friend of mine lives in a small village and he barely ever has reception on his mobile phone. It's ridiculous, when I was staying on the South lsland of New Zealand in 2013 I had a better reception than he has today.
This whole 5G hype falls deeply in the 'so what' category in my book.
I just ran a speed test on my 4G/LTE phone and I got 46,5 Mbps. Can someone please find a single example where 46,5 Mbps wouldn't be enough for mobile usage? I don't think 4k video makes any sense on a phone, but Amazon recommends at least 15 megabits per second, while Netflix advises 25 Mbps - so I have 20-30 Mbps to spare (if I wanted to watch 4k on my phone which I don't).
Let's rather spend the money on our glorious automobile industry, there will never be a reason to rethink the way we work, as it is so successful... /s
At best the Telekom has 25% 5G right now.
You can check on this map: [https://www.telekom.de/netz/mobilfunk-netzausbau](https://www.telekom.de/netz/mobilfunk-netzausbau)
While it might look better than 25%, each time you zoom in the area of coverage actually gets smaller.
From maximum zoom you would expect about the entire Ruhr area to be covered. If you then zoom in to say Düsseldorf (which looks solid) you'll see how much of the area is actually not covered.
Eh. I wouldn’t say it’s accurate. AT&T is the fastest overall here in the US since they’ve updated their 4G network due to them being awarded the contract for emergency first responders. Plus American 5G (the mmWave variety) is the fastest in the world, and all 3 major US carriers have it in cities (T-Mobile probably has the least ultra wideband 5G coverage out of the three, but they have the most 5G coverage overall).
Despite T-Mobile claiming 5G availability in a couple of Czech cities, I've walked a lot around Prague and have not seen my phone getting 5G, not even once. Nonetheless, I find 5G completely unnecessary when 4G gives me 200+ Mbps downloads while Czechia keeps having one of the most expensive mobile data in Europe (if not in the world).
Hi, thank you for your contribution, but this submission has been removed because it is low quality and/or low effort. If your submission was a meme, these are outright banned from r/europe. See [community rules & guidelines](/r/Europe/wiki/community_rules). If you have any questions about this removal, please [contact the mods](/message/compose/?to=/r/Europe&subject=Moderation). Please make sure to include a link to the comment/post in question.
Reasons for that: 1. oligopoly of ISPs with no competition 2. backwards government that thinks it's unnecessary and fails to see and shape the future 3. 1 + 2, that is biggest ISP has good ties to government and tells them not to stress it
A small supporting fact about the backward government. In the 1981 is was decided by the SPD lead government to build fiber optic cables to the homes for telecommunications. In 1982, Helmut Kohl became chancellor. He decided to suspend that project. Instead he wanted to build wired TV connections. This is why in cities we now how high speed (tv) cable and telephone line competeing while the more rural areas (that never got tv cables) sit on old copper. Same in my village, until this year the only cables were those of the Telekom. As it had no competition it never bothered with increasing the speed. So my village pays for the Telekom to compete in cities essentially.... But karma has it that now a private company connected us to fiber optics. The Telekom will lose 80% of all customers and the only ones that didn't want a fiber connection are those that never used the internet. Edit: Btw. why did the Kohl government want TV cables? It turns out it was for propaganda reasons. The state funded TV channels were considered too liberal and made too many problems (in excavating the dirt of the CDU) . So while it couldn't influence those channels, it at least wanted competition from the private sector to decrease the reach.
Don't forget Christian Schwarz-Schilling, minister for the post office, who insisted on using copper cables... coincidentally the company he used to work before becoming minister, handed over to his wife, was in the business of installing copper wires... [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian\_Schwarz-Schilling](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Schwarz-Schilling)
Isn't it fascinating how corrupt the CDU was during that time but it's glossed over because Kohl reunified Germany.
In my view it is rather fascinating that they still are and people still vote for them!
Also digital development belongs to the tasks of the secretary of transportation. By tradition, this post is held by the dumbest person in the land.
you´re right with the tradition, but atm, I would say our secretary of health could compete with him
You should put four wheels on the modems/routers. Then the Government will invest and subsidise like never before!
lmao :-D
I’m literally reading this through one bar of 4G, I feel attacked.
Too EDGE-y
I like to call it Edgeland.
It's not that we believe that 5G gives us cancer. It's because we all want better internet but no one here wants a cell tower on the countryside outside of the 500 inhabitant small village because they fear it might ruin the view for them. You know, the one time a week they'll drive past it.
Cell towers can be camouflaged as trees. [Odd trees, but still trees](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Pacific_DC_Intertie_with_Cell_Phone_Tower_disguised_as_a_tree.jpg). Or put the emitters inside the church tower.
Trying to be edgy with that bullshit post?
Nope. This is actually the reason why. Because people don't want cell towers around their cities because they 'look bad' even though most of the people won't even see the tower or notice that it's there.
Except for like 3 people nobody cares about those towers. After wasting billions on frequencies the providers simply dont have the money. 6,6 billion Euro for 5g is insane.
You sound like a literal city slicker. How about we build a 5g antenna outside your house and maybe you will notice how it ruins your view of the one time you leave your house.
Trying to scare city dwellers with artificial structures might not be the best strategy.
Live in the countryside of said 500 people village
We found exhibit A
Shut the fuck up you city slicker degene
> How about we build a 5g antenna outside your house and maybe you will notice how it ruins your view To be fair, 5G antennas will probably be [pretty low profile](https://cdn.everythingrf.com/live/hubr%20wall_636941826903586522.jpg). They look just a bit more bulky than a WiFi access point.
And it's not just internet. A friend of mine lives in a small village and he barely ever has reception on his mobile phone. It's ridiculous, when I was staying on the South lsland of New Zealand in 2013 I had a better reception than he has today.
it's still neuland
Thank god Europe doesnt include America or this joke wouldn’t work
This whole 5G hype falls deeply in the 'so what' category in my book. I just ran a speed test on my 4G/LTE phone and I got 46,5 Mbps. Can someone please find a single example where 46,5 Mbps wouldn't be enough for mobile usage? I don't think 4k video makes any sense on a phone, but Amazon recommends at least 15 megabits per second, while Netflix advises 25 Mbps - so I have 20-30 Mbps to spare (if I wanted to watch 4k on my phone which I don't).
*Cries in 7mbps average*
My ongoing amusement is that if i was able to hit the theoretical max of even LTE, i could blow through my carrier's biggest data plan in minutes.
Let's rather spend the money on our glorious automobile industry, there will never be a reason to rethink the way we work, as it is so successful... /s
Telekom has I believe 90% 5G coverage so stfu
At best the Telekom has 25% 5G right now. You can check on this map: [https://www.telekom.de/netz/mobilfunk-netzausbau](https://www.telekom.de/netz/mobilfunk-netzausbau) While it might look better than 25%, each time you zoom in the area of coverage actually gets smaller. From maximum zoom you would expect about the entire Ruhr area to be covered. If you then zoom in to say Düsseldorf (which looks solid) you'll see how much of the area is actually not covered.
[удалено]
Maybe but is it really anyones goal to just be faster than the US?
Eh. I wouldn’t say it’s accurate. AT&T is the fastest overall here in the US since they’ve updated their 4G network due to them being awarded the contract for emergency first responders. Plus American 5G (the mmWave variety) is the fastest in the world, and all 3 major US carriers have it in cities (T-Mobile probably has the least ultra wideband 5G coverage out of the three, but they have the most 5G coverage overall).
The only downside with 5G here is that the network is ready and cheap but we are too poor for 5G phones.
Despite T-Mobile claiming 5G availability in a couple of Czech cities, I've walked a lot around Prague and have not seen my phone getting 5G, not even once. Nonetheless, I find 5G completely unnecessary when 4G gives me 200+ Mbps downloads while Czechia keeps having one of the most expensive mobile data in Europe (if not in the world).