[sheepscreek]

It’s a positive thing, tbh. I wish the number was bigger. Our desire to switch to the hottest new thing has a significant environmental impact. People don’t need the fastest available mobile internet for checking mails or streaming videos at 1 Mbps. They don’t need the fastest PCs for using Google docs. We don’t need massive pickup trucks for doing grocery runs or even hauling passengers around. It’s fair for anyone to disagree, but I wanted to put this thought out there.

[cogman10]

I see environmental impact of electronics frequently mentioned but, gotta be honest, I'm not sure I really buy that there is a major environmental impact there. Even if someone is getting a brand new phone every year, that's how much plastic and silicon? In a year?

Compare that to the daily disposable plastics just for food. Or the amount of plastics for shipping and storing goods.

[wkjagt]

It’s not just the materials in the phone itself. It’s the whole production process.

[vel0city]

Operating slower RF equipment isn't just affecting the single end user though. That user is affecting everyone else wanting to share that spectrum.

[bobdvb]

I get the argument, but the networks seem to be operating quite inefficiently anyway. They have been given a tonne of spectrum over the years and yet they don't tend to address areas of concern over coverage. They could put in more small cells to improve coverage, but they just want to maximise the utilisation their wide area coverage frequencies. I live in an area where you'd expect fantastic coverage, close to a globally significant city and yet not too dense population. A 5G speed test will often get you DSL speeds. Leaving a few channels, or even allocating guard bands to low power 3G seems like it won't significantly impact the networks and at worse inspire them to invest better in their networks. Scarcity drives innovation afterall.