My next door neighborhood is filled with the stupid 5G debates. The ignorance of some of my neighbors is breathtaking. And I live in a highly educated neighborhood. Go figure. At least the mayor and the council is on board for 5G rollout due to the current poor reception of 4G among some providers.
Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, and FCC Bullying
21–30 of 433 posts
Re: Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, and FCC Bullying
#22I’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.
Are you sure 5G is the only answer, or could your telco invest in more 4G infrastructure? (which they are probably reluctant to do with 5G around the corner)
Re: Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, and FCC Bullying
#23My next door neighborhood is filled with the stupid 5G debates. The ignorance of some of my neighbors is breathtaking. And I live in a highly educated neighborhood. Go figure. At least the mayor and the council is on board for 5G rollout due to the current poor reception of 4G among some providers.
Won't 5G have even worse reception due to the higher frequency/smaller reception distance?
Re: Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, and FCC Bullying
#24The 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.
Yeah, specifically the sub-6GHz C-band that it is basically ripping out of the hands of traditional radio media companies (ie, npr, etc) that use it for satellite distribution of radio shows. There's been a lot of complaints from radio people about this but the telcos have more money so they'll get it.
Re: Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, and FCC Bullying
#25One 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.
_Lower_ throughput? Care to elaborate?
Re: Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, and FCC Bullying
#26Nilay Patel wrote an editorial over at The Verge titled
"Wait, why the hell is the ‘race to 5G’ even a race?":
https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/23/18637213/5g-race-us-leade...
> All I’m asking is that the next time you hear a wireless industry person talk about the “race” to 5G, stop and ask them why it’s a race. Ask who the competitors are, and what happens if we come in second place. See if you buy the answer. I suspect you won’t hear anything convincing.
Faster internet is of course great in and of itself, but I'm not convinced it's deserving of public subsidies or regulatory exemptions, particularly in large cities that already have access to fast broadband. Furthermore, I'm quite concerned about NASA's warning that 5G will weaken our ability to forecast the weather, including life-or-death phenomena like hurricanes.
Re: Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, and FCC Bullying
#27I still have no idea what practical application makes use of 5G.
Playing the Chrome dino game as the connection will drop more frequently due to the smaller wavelength.
Re: Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, and FCC Bullying
#28One 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.
The fact that the general public doesn't know this is a failure of the carriers and FCC. Instead of clearly stating what the differences are and maybe not putting everything in the 5G bucket they got greedy and thought they could get it all.
If the high frequency set was left out of 5Gs first round no one would have objected to the upgrade.
I find the "We need 5G so we can have real time translation and autonomous cars" one of the dumbest arguments that can be made and it's pandering to an uneducated public. Why do we need more speed and connectivity for those things when we have better and better ML processors on Teslas and Google moving some voice recognition algos directly to devices? It's a bullshit argument.
Re: Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, and FCC Bullying
#29It's my impression that the vanguard of the anti-vaxxer movement have long since moved on to 5G as their battleground of choice. And to be fair, of all the places they could try to incite another mindless panic, this is probably the most harmless they could have chosen - at least this time around no children will die from it.
[deleted]
Re: Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, and FCC Bullying
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 int…
>If these new things rely on 5g, how well will they work as soon as they move out of range of 5g internet?
That's... true for all network-based technologies. Electricity is great, but if you don't have a grid connection, battery or means of generating it... you can't use it.
>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.
5g includes a high-frequency version which is extremely high-throughput but short range and murdered by walls. There is a lower-throughput version at a much lower frequency which has solid range comparable with low-frequency 4g.