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

Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, and FCC Bullying

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 433 posts

Re: Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, and FCC Bullying

#61

Post by Wowfunhappy »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #51
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #26

Nilay 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 sus…

> I'm quite concerned about NASA's warning that 5G will weaken our ability to forecast the weather NASA issued no such warning. 5G would interfere with one satellite-based moisture measure around populated areas. NOAA’s commentary was around how that one measure would need to be statistically tweaked or supplemented. (The headlines resulted from NOAA’s head warning the Congress that if the latter didn’t give him fund…

I was repeating what I've read. When The Washington Post reported[1] about NOAA director Neil Jacobs's testimony before congress on the issue, they wrote:

> With this reduced forecast skill, the European model would not have predicted 2012′s Superstorm Sandy hitting the Northeast coast several days in advance, Jacobs said. Instead, the model would have steered the storm out to sea. Lead time to prepare for the storm would have been cut short.

Was The Washington Post mistaken?

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/05/23/head-noaa-...

Re: Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, and FCC Bullying

#62

Post by clairity »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #58
_bxg1 wrote: post #33

There's such weird marketing zealotry behind 5G. They're acting like it's going to completely reshape society, but at best it's just... faster internet. In places where the internet is already pretty fast. I can only assume it's a mixture of political and economic stakeholders that have their own reasons for really wanting it to succeed (looking competitive against China, selling new phones, etc.)

> at best it's just... faster internet Counterpoint: streaming audio and video were singularly enabled by faster internet. That is restructuring multibillion-dollar industries. The iPhone, one could argue, and through it real-time social media, are products of mobile internet. There are legitimate new capabilities that will likely erupt from cheaper, faster mobile internet. If the playground is in Shenzhen versus Sil…

pervasive AR/VR is supposed to be the killer app for 5G, but i'm personally not excited about it (à la 3D TV).

just give me the lower prices we were promised by the carrier oligopoly in exchange for all those governmental concessions (not holding my breath).

Re: Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, and FCC Bullying

#63

Post by rhacker »

sschueller wrote: post #28
zw123456 wrote: post #5

One 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 ca…

Well, technically there may be a middle market for remote human controlled cars where a live video stream is necessary.

Re: Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, and FCC Bullying

#64

Post by AJ007 »

sschueller wrote: post #28
zw123456 wrote: post #5

One 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 ca…

This title summarizes it - https://boingboing.net/2019/04/10/ai-8k-5g-ecosystem.html ; after falling back on their promise of building a TV factory in Wisconsin, Foxconn said the would be instead doing “AI 8k 5G” the online buzzword missing was blockchain.

Re: Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, and FCC Bullying

#65

Post by Wowfunhappy »

lostmsu wrote: post #47
superkuh wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which also makes total sense to me: I use radio maybe once a year, mobile data once an hour.

Radio is used more frequently in poorer and more rural communities.

Re: Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, and FCC Bullying

#66

Post by didibus »

_bxg1 wrote: post #33

There's such weird marketing zealotry behind 5G. They're acting like it's going to completely reshape society, but at best it's just... faster internet. In places where the internet is already pretty fast. I can only assume it's a mixture of political and economic stakeholders that have their own reasons for really wanting it to succeed (looking competitive against China, selling new phones, etc.)

And honestly, they should start by improving home internet. It's already at the point where 4G is often more reliable.

Re: Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, and FCC Bullying

#67

Post by lostmsu »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #65
lostmsu wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which also makes total sense to me: I use radio maybe once a year, mobile data once an hour.

Radio is used more frequently in poorer and more rural communities.

In the US? Do you have data for this? Do those communities even have cell coverage?

Re: Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, and FCC Bullying

#68

Post by antome »

saagarjha wrote: post #46
thekyle wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish it was as easy to get people enthusiastic about other networking upgrades like IPv6.

Call it 6G IP.

They can always rebrand it, like how 802.11ax is now "Wi-Fi 6" https://www.wi-fi.org/news-events/newsroom/wi-fi-alliance-in...

Re: Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, and FCC Bullying

#69

Post by mchristen »

kbrosnan wrote: post #45
XCSme wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Won't 5G have even worse reception due to the higher frequency/smaller reception distance?

With the current equipment and spectrum assigned it does have that problem. MKBHD goes over this is a video. It is awesome if you stand right underneath a 5g site, 1-2 gbps. If you head down the road a hundred feet/30 meters the signal drops to much closer to 4g speeds. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_CTUs_2hq6Y

Reminds me of Sprint's rollout of Wimax technology. It was awesome if you had direct LOS with the tower and also kept your phone perfectly still.

Eventually they canned it.

Re: Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, and FCC Bullying

#70

Post by dmix »

np_tedious wrote: post #52
_bxg1 wrote: post #33

There's such weird marketing zealotry behind 5G. They're acting like it's going to completely reshape society, but at best it's just... faster internet. In places where the internet is already pretty fast. I can only assume it's a mixture of political and economic stakeholders that have their own reasons for really wanting it to succeed (looking competitive against China, selling new phones, etc.)

You can hear some particularly wild assertions like this in the long running commercial throughout the past few episodes of Malcolm Gladwell's Revisionist History podcast. They are formatted as conversation between Gladwell and an AT&T exec. It always starts with "what are some things that might be enabled if bandwidth improved and latency decreased" and then just jumps immediately to some Internet of Things utopia.

I'd love to hear this, sounds cringey.

Edit: weird it's a 3 short episode advertisement thing, a "live-read" ad in an interview format. These Pop science people are a great marketing/hype vector. I'm curious how much AT&T paid for this.

https://youtu.be/EccF6jR3CFo

https://youtu.be/n5AWdU75c1w

https://youtu.be/UKaIg102CAU

The ATT guy said 5g will solve bike deaths by having your bike talk to the stop light and other cars, but with machine learning!

It seems to have the same disconnect from the real world implementations that the AI sales hucksters are pushing, like those IBM Watson ads that were very obviously (to every programmer) being over sold to big businesses.

Post reply on HN