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

101–110 of 433 posts

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

#101

Post by apcragg »

jhncls wrote: post #88
renaudg wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you'll be interested to hear from actual 5G users before making uninformed claims. I have home wireless broadband in central London (no other good broadband offering in my street) and was upgraded from 4G to 5G last week. I went from an average of 5-10Mbps at peak times and 20Mbps max on 4G, to 150-250Mbps peak time and 350MBps max on 5G, on the same carrier (Three). Enough said.

Maybe it just works fast because there still are only a very limited number of users? And will speeds and latencies drop as the airspace gets more saturated?

In short - some but not really. 5G NR allows for extremely efficient resource block allocation and can handle ~10x more concurrent users than 4G. The latency should not degrade as long as the carriers don't do weird things with traffic allocation - the standard allows for ~4ms worst case latency.

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

#102

Post by rgrieselhuber »

apcragg wrote: post #100
asciident wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything I've heard about it indicates that it's a trash technology. Unless you're standing next to an emitter, it's no faster than 4G and potentially even slower. Like you walk one block or behind a wall and it's not good anymore. So you gotta put one of these up on every block. I'm banking on it being a complete dud, like 3D televisions.

You have heard wrong - it's amusing that you're so confident in its failure despite having the wrong information. There are two phases in the 5G NR standard. The first phase relies on some elements of the LTE control plane to coordinate data services. These data services use new numerologies for their OFDM modulation, vastly more flexible resource block, allocation, improved error control coding, lower maximum latenc…

Do you work in the industry?

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

#103

Post by thekyle »

didibus wrote: post #66
_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.

Oh man. If I could get unlimited 4G home internet and have multiple ISPs to choose from that would be the dream.

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

#104

Post by nitrogen »

PorterDuff wrote: post #87

Since I don't download uncompressed 4k video anymore, I'm personally getting practically all of the value of the internet (to me) from merely having a cheap cable connection at home. I've never been certain who 5g or fiber is really targeting. Amazon works fine, Netflix works fine, downloading an OS or language tool set isn't too heinous. High data speed to a phone is uninteresting, but YMMV. As usual, improvements b…

Faster upload speeds enable new applications -- easier high res streaming, self-hosted storage (stream from home to your phone regardless of whether what you want is on a commercial streaming platform), just plain less waiting when creating and uploading creative work

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

#105

Post by apcragg »

rgrieselhuber wrote: post #102
apcragg wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have heard wrong - it's amusing that you're so confident in its failure despite having the wrong information. There are two phases in the 5G NR standard. The first phase relies on some elements of the LTE control plane to coordinate data services. These data services use new numerologies for their OFDM modulation, vastly more flexible resource block, allocation, improved error control coding, lower maximum latenc…

Do you work in the industry?

Not for the big telecomm's but I design parts of the radios and DSP algorithms implementing the major cellular technologies.

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

#106

Post by wahern »

lostmsu wrote: post #67
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> 90 percent of Americans over age 12 listen to AM/FM radio at least once a week — down 2 percent since 2009. (This does not include public media, which Pew covered in a separate fact sheet.)

Source: https://www.niemanlab.org/2018/07/am-fm-radio-holds-strong-f...

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

#107

Post by jodrellblank »

apcragg wrote: post #100
asciident wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything I've heard about it indicates that it's a trash technology. Unless you're standing next to an emitter, it's no faster than 4G and potentially even slower. Like you walk one block or behind a wall and it's not good anymore. So you gotta put one of these up on every block. I'm banking on it being a complete dud, like 3D televisions.

You have heard wrong - it's amusing that you're so confident in its failure despite having the wrong information. There are two phases in the 5G NR standard. The first phase relies on some elements of the LTE control plane to coordinate data services. These data services use new numerologies for their OFDM modulation, vastly more flexible resource block, allocation, improved error control coding, lower maximum latenc…

it's amusing that you're so confident in its failure despite having the wrong information.

Why would that be "despite"? That would have to be being confident in its failure despite having information that it would be a success. Surely they're confident in its failure because the information they have says it will be bad?

And then your comment becomes "I'm laughing because you're confident in your beliefs" which is content-free smugness, or "I'm laughing at you because you don't know what I know" which is more or less the same, if not worse.

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

#108

Post by coliveira »

5G represents the end of the oligopoly maintained by Comcast and Verizon. There is a lot on stake for these giant companies, and the fight will be ugly. Chinese companies have a clear advantage in developing this technology because they have a huge country with new networks developing, free from the constraints of an established oligopoly.

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

#109

Post by kube-system »

DenisM wrote: post #4

I 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.

Not to imply that you are, but I prefer to embrace nuance rather than neglect it myself by dismissing misunderstandings of it.

WiFi is a lot like a microwave, just with some important differences. WiFi is just modulated and about 1/1000th the power.

There are real reasons why SAR regulations exist.

I blame the misunderstanding squarely on journalists who picked up early stories about SAR limit studies and did an awful job of explaining them.

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

#110

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

renaudg wrote: post #98
ilikehurdles wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have 150Mbps right now (checked on fast.com) with 4G in Central Denver. It’s not about the number before the G, but whether the carriers are building enough infrastructure to support it.

It is definitely about the number before the G. With perfect infrastructure investment like what your carrier seems to have done with 4G in Denver, 5G could reach 1-2GBps. In other words, real world imperfect 5G is ten times better than 4G with all stars aligned.

It doesn't look like like your old "4G" was legitimate full performance LTE. Cell carriers lie and demur about what performance they actually provide. You can't trust the number to mean anything.
Post reply on HN