Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, and FCC Bullying
1–10 of 433 posts
Re: Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, and FCC Bullying
#2I’m ambivalent. Cellphone internet is already faster than cable internet for many people. Even if the 5g health risk is complete bunk, do we really need 5g?
Usually when I want internet that fast I want it at home or work. As such, I am a bit more excited for Wifi 6.
Re: Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, and FCC Bullying
#3I’m ambivalent. Cellphone internet is already faster than cable internet for many people. Even if the 5g health risk is complete bunk, do we really need 5g? Usually when I want internet that fast I want it at home or work. As such, I am a bit more excited for Wifi 6.
It might unblock new products.
Being uneducated on 5g in particular, low latency fast internet can result in proliferation of mobile ar/ve devices, and bring internet to towns that otherwise dont have cable/fiber wiring, etc.
There are some efforts in robotics that would have much better ux if they had faster internet in remote places.
You can imagine stadia running on mobile on the extreme. Everything cloud streamed.
Faster internet means when it matters you wont have to wait downloading a large binary, even though you dont need to be utilizing it 100% of the billing cycle.
A mobile surgery center can be operated by a world renowned md, at the comfort of yheir home
Re: Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, and FCC Bullying
#4I remember the abundant “cell phones cause cancer” and “WiFi is like a microwave” scares 20 years ago, they all ended when people got their hands on nice and shiny touchscreen smartphones.
Re: Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, and FCC Bullying
#5One thing that a lot of people do not understand is that 5G can operate in any frequency band. In fact, for many 4G radios it is nothing more than a software upgrade, no change to the physical device or power levels, just faster and lower throughput.
Re: Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, and FCC Bullying
#6I’m ambivalent. Cellphone internet is already faster than cable internet for many people. Even if the 5g health risk is complete bunk, do we really need 5g? Usually when I want internet that fast I want it at home or work. As such, I am a bit more excited for Wifi 6.
At 5pm after work I get around 0kbps because everyone is leaving work and uploading selfies, starting music, playing a video or whatever. 5G would vastly improved the congestion problem so I could at least message I’ll be late as I’m stopping for milk, or I’ll be late as I’ve been in a wreck and am about to be airlifted.
Re: Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, and FCC Bullying
#7I find the argument that 5G is at all unsafe on a pole to be a bit silly. I think there are a couple of much more serious issues:
1. Is a millimeter-wave transmitter in a phone safe? The power output is moderately high, and these wavelengths are absorbed near the surface of your skin or your cornea. Cellphones are held near faces all the time. So I’d be much more concerned about using a 5G phone than about living near a 5G tower.
2. The 5G wavelengths May interfere with weather radar. I think that good weather forecasts are generally more important than cat videos.
Re: Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, and FCC Bullying
#8I’m ambivalent. Cellphone internet is already faster than cable internet for many people. Even if the 5g health risk is complete bunk, do we really need 5g? Usually when I want internet that fast I want it at home or work. As such, I am a bit more excited for Wifi 6.
Competition to cable should improve speed and reduce internet prices.
Right now we only have cable in most of the country, when 5g is out we will have three more last-mike providers: ATT, Verizon, and T-Mobile.
Re: Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, and FCC Bullying
#9The most important information in this piece is the FCC making rules favoring the very telecoms they are supposed to be regulating. Not that anyone familiar with this administration (or that scumbag Pai) is surprised.
Re: Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, and FCC Bullying
#10I’m ambivalent. Cellphone internet is already faster than cable internet for many people. Even if the 5g health risk is complete bunk, do we really need 5g? Usually when I want internet that fast I want it at home or work. As such, I am a bit more excited for Wifi 6.
It might unblock new products. Being uneducated on 5g in particular, low latency fast internet can result in proliferation of mobile ar/ve devices, and bring internet to towns that otherwise dont have cable/fiber wiring, etc. There are some efforts in robotics that would have much better ux if they had faster internet in remote places. You can imagine stadia running on mobile on the extreme. Everything cloud streamed…
>It might unblock new products.
>Being uneducated on 5g in particular, low latency fast internet can result in proliferation of mobile ar/ve devices.
If these new things rely on 5g, how well will they work as soon as they move out of range of 5g internet?
>Bring internet to towns that otherwise dont have cable/fiber wiring, etc.
>There are some efforts in robotics that would have much better ux if they had faster internet in remote places.
But wait. Doesn't 5g have more limited range than previous wireless generations? It seems existing LTE towers would be a better solution if you just wanted to cover the earth in high speed internet.