Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Debate Over Neighborhood Zoning Could Hold Up Fast 5G Wireless for Years

fastcompany.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–88 of 88 posts

Re: The Debate Over Neighborhood Zoning Could Hold Up Fast 5G Wireless for Years

#81

Post by rayiner »

mattrices wrote: post #70
rayiner wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, but why do we have to foster that social cohesion in the most expensive way possible? Why demand that connectivity in these rural areas be by wireline instead of much cheaper wireless? Okay, people need access. Let’s get it done as cheaply and with as little market distortion as possible. The thing that does that is wireless.

No one will be starting an internet company in a location where there is only mobile internet. >lets get it done as cheaply and with as little market distortion as possible. Why do people act like they're paying for personally? This was already agreed upon by communication companies when they were allowed to monopolize much higher ROI urban markets. The whole point was that the high ROI markets would fund the develop…

We don’t need people to start internet companies in areas that are no longer viable. And yes, you are paying for those rural subsidies personally. Literally, through a tax on your telecommunications bill each month. Also, the original idea was to give telecom companies monopolies to allow them to use above-market returns to subsidize rural areas. This was a terrible idea and gave us the entrenched incumbents we have today. In the 1990s, Congress realized this was terrible and got rid of that arrangement, shifting to explicit cross subsidization. But service and build out requirements continue to stifle development of competition. You can’t, as a new entrant, do stuff like pursue a profitable niche (startup 101 advice). And a special tax is levied on your product, as if it were something harmful like cigarettes.

There is no free lunch! If you force urban areas to cross-subsidize rural ones, either directly or indirectly, you’ll get lower quality service at higher prices in urban area.

Look at the regulatory regimes in places like Sweden. They don’t have build out requirements or cross subsidies. To the extent the government wants connectivity in rural places, it doesn’t distort the market by having high-ROI places cross-subsidize it. It pays for it directly.

Re: The Debate Over Neighborhood Zoning Could Hold Up Fast 5G Wireless for Years

#82

Post by rdiddly »

adrianratnapala wrote: post #71
rdiddly wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technology and "progress" are never without problems or externalities. And residents of MBY are the ones who deserve the right of self-determination regarding said BY. Including evaluating whether they are going to get proportionally enough benefit from a project to justify the costs they will inevitably bear from having it situated there. They have a right to be suspicious of EM radiation, or even downright supersti…

The problem with the term NIMBY is that it isn't really about anyone's back yard. It's about people who live somewhere trying to control what happens on nearby property. You are trying to have it both ways by talking about both externalities and "self-determination regarding said BY". The latter makes if you are only "saying respect property" rights: let people have as many voodoo charms and do as crystal-power-empat…

"Back yard" is a figure of speech, just like it is in the acronym. The people of X should determine what happens in X, where X can be , , , or . However as you can imagine, there are going to be conflicts between what the people of a larger entity want vs. what the people of a smaller contained entity want. The interests of the people of might conflict with the interests of the people of for example. So it gets murky fast.

I happen to think we should try to err in favor of the smaller entity. Which takes care of a couple of problems: It satisfies property rights as you're saying. And it prevents a small entity from forcing its will on another comparably small entity by appealing to the larger entity that contains them both, which it sounds like you're also concerned about.

But the impact scope needs to be properly defined. Erring in favor of the smaller entity means you define the scope as small as possible. But to remain fair, go no smaller. For one of these towers, the scope of impact is probably . That's how wide its transmit/receive radius will be (smaller than today's towers), and that's probably also how far you'll have to go until that particular tower isn't visible (which isn't a rational argument by the way, but an aesthetic one, probably lost on anyone born after 1990 and accustomed to seeing shitty towers everywhere).

My point wasn't the merits of any particular argument; I only brought that up to shock someone into realizing people can have contrary opinions, including for no good reason, and if you want to persuade them you have to meet them where they are, just like if you were selling a product to a customer.

Re: The Debate Over Neighborhood Zoning Could Hold Up Fast 5G Wireless for Years

#83

Post by Fjolsvith »

fourthark wrote: post #65
superkuh wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a big change. Telco-provided wireless internet connections are not actually real internet connections. Half the time you don't even get a real routable IP address and nearly 100% of the time you don't get ports or even the ability to forward them. And that's not even mentioning the horrible data transfer limits and traffic shaping. Whereas home connections are real, have real IPs, and have full ports that you co…

So... back to Ethernet?

NIMBY!

Re: The Debate Over Neighborhood Zoning Could Hold Up Fast 5G Wireless for Years

#84

Post by Yumz- »

konschubert wrote: post #27
Yumz- wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this a bad thing? I don't understand why you think every rural backwater needs to be subsidized to the tune of billions by the productive regions of the world. We should be looking to returning 95%+ of land to nature as we urbanize more and more. I wish more companies and governments would do what the ISPs are doing. Why am I paying for post offices in rural America? Why am I paying to subsidize electricity tr…

So the people living there aren't left behind too much. It is in your best interest to retain some social cohesion.

I totally agree. That's why those people should be given two choices: A) move into urban areas or B) die.

Re: The Debate Over Neighborhood Zoning Could Hold Up Fast 5G Wireless for Years

#85

Post by Yumz- »

jcims wrote: post #73
QAPereo wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it's not that they're free to move, it's just that you resent their very existence.

I live out in the boonies. There is a strong percentage of people on sites like this (reddit in particular) that think I'm some kind of geoboomer for not selling my home and renting a sixth story apartment in an urban setting. The fact that I selected to live here also makes me an uneducated bigot that hates brown folks and will almost certainly re-up in ~38 months.

You are free to live where ever you want -- as long as you support yourself.

If you are receiving a disproportionate amount of tax dollars to roll our billion dollar road, telecommunication, etc infrastructure to you, well then fuck you. I hope the coyotes eat you alive.

Re: The Debate Over Neighborhood Zoning Could Hold Up Fast 5G Wireless for Years

#86

Post by Yumz- »

luckman212 wrote: post #36
Yumz- wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not uncommon here in Turkey. I end up using my iPhone as a modem via USB tethering often. Mobile internet is much faster in Turkey (100+ mbs for cheap) than the wired network. It only adds ~10ping and can handle anything. I'm willing to bet this will be the norm worldwide when 5G rolls out. Here in Turkey we have '4.5G' which is a marketing term for the latest generation 4G infrastructure. We only got 4G last…

Really? I just returned from a 2-week vacation in Turkey (Izmir, Cesme) and I was lucky to get working internet at all roaming on Turkcell. When it did connect, the speeds were ~4 mbps (iPhone6s - Verizon). Not sure if that's just because I was roaming.

Did you think to walk into a Turkcell store and buy a SIM card + prepaid bandwidth? 6GB LTE + 500 minutes/texts is 50 lira (~$15)

Re: The Debate Over Neighborhood Zoning Could Hold Up Fast 5G Wireless for Years

#87

Post by Yumz- »

sandworm101 wrote: post #33
Yumz- wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this a bad thing? I don't understand why you think every rural backwater needs to be subsidized to the tune of billions by the productive regions of the world. We should be looking to returning 95%+ of land to nature as we urbanize more and more. I wish more companies and governments would do what the ISPs are doing. Why am I paying for post offices in rural America? Why am I paying to subsidize electricity tr…

Had we taken that approach a century ago most farms would never have never been electrified. It wouldn't have been worth the effort for the utilities to run the lines absent government mandates. (fyi, this has returned as a huge problem today. Utilities charge massive amounts to electrify new developments in rural areas. If it requires more than a pole or two, the cheaper option is to build your own offgrid setup. Po…

Assuming you are correct that utilities would not have done it freely, then those farms should not have been electrified. It would have sped of the consolidation and industrialization of farming by 100 years by forcing small farmers to either die or sell their land and move to the cities.

Re: The Debate Over Neighborhood Zoning Could Hold Up Fast 5G Wireless for Years

#88

Post by sctb »

Yumz- wrote: post #85
jcims wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live out in the boonies. There is a strong percentage of people on sites like this (reddit in particular) that think I'm some kind of geoboomer for not selling my home and renting a sixth story apartment in an urban setting. The fact that I selected to live here also makes me an uneducated bigot that hates brown folks and will almost certainly re-up in ~38 months.

You are free to live where ever you want -- as long as you support yourself. If you are receiving a disproportionate amount of tax dollars to roll our billion dollar road, telecommunication, etc infrastructure to you, well then fuck you. I hope the coyotes eat you alive.

Civility on Hacker News stops somewhere well before the coyotes. Please don't post like this here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Post reply on HN