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

121–130 of 433 posts

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

#121

Post by jodrellblank »

apcragg wrote: post #112
jodrellblank wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

Being confident enough to trash-talk based on hearsay is just being arrogant.

Dismissing other people's information and sources without knowing what they are or where they're from, assuming your knowledge is automatically superior, laughing at them, is similarly just being arrogant.

And then, after being pushed, admitting you have a vested interest in making them sound better and your job depends on it, isn't a good look.

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

#122

Post by soulofmischief »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #110
renaudg wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't know much about the specifics behind 5G but if asciident's claim is true then towers on every block should perform very well under high load. What kind of performance are you referring to? Throughput? Latency? Availability? Reliability?

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

#123

Post by renaudg »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #110
renaudg wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It was definitely a busy area and dozens of Mbps are more typical on 4G. My point is that real world 5G is an order of magnitude faster than real world 4G, much like 4G was in comparison to 3G.

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

#124

Post by richrichardsson »

nitrogen wrote: post #104
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

Faster upload speeds is something that I wish was more prevalent. Most ISPs that I have experience of prioritise download speeds over upload, but for my use case there is a point where increased download speed doesn't give me any measurable benefit, but being able to upload at a decent rate would be a huge benefit.

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

#125

Post by povertyworld »

renaudg wrote: post #119

Really surprised to see the beating heart of tech that is HN turn into a luddite forum on this occasion. Last week I got upgraded from 4G to 5G for home broadband here in London, UK. It just became commercially available in my area (on Three) As I said in another comment, my average speeds went up from 5-10Mbps to 150-250Mbps and peak ones from 20-25Mbps to 350-400Mbps. It absolutely is the game changer it's advertis…

Is data going to be cheaper too? Otherwise, it's not going to change anything for most people. It'll just mean I can blow through my monthly quota in a day instead of a week.

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

#126

Post by mooselumps »

Nasrudith wrote: post #71

The whole "aesthetics" thing against new technology always struck me as bizzare and selective given all of the far uglier things already in place that they actively like. It seems to be the Oscar Wilde practically satirical "Anything which is of practical use is ugly and anything which isn't is beautiful".

I don’t disagree with your sentiment but the 5G modem pictured on a pole in Atlanta looked like a mess with lots of exposed wires. I’ve never seen anything like that outside of a messy set up in a home office.

I’m fairly certain that the carriers could fit the antennas and wiring into a more clean looking packages to put on poles.

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

#127

Post by reaperducer »

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…

Faster, yes. But "cheaper" is just marketing hype. There's no way the telecom companies are going to pass any potential savings on to any end user. Shareholders will poop a brick if they adopt technology that reduces RPU.

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

#128

Post by smkellat »

My city is looking at a total 5G ban. A city charter re-write is going to be needed to topple the current municipal administration. Moving to non-partisan elections would probably help since some of the current city council incumbents either didn’t graduate high school or only graduated high school over 50 years ago. Party structures protected those incumbents with this literally disconnected population.

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

#129

Post by lostmsu »

wahern wrote: post #106
lostmsu wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Once a week vs once an hour gives us clear winner.

https://nypost.com/2017/11/08/americans-check-their-phones-8...

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

#130

Post by apcragg »

rgrieselhuber wrote: post #114
apcragg wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What are your thoughts on the safety concerns?

Not my area of expertise. The main study I'm aware of showing some harmful affects uses an unrealistic amount of power and curiously only showed effects for male mice. I'm hesitant to dismiss it, because effects from heating caused by non-ionizing radiation are well documented but that amount of power is just not present in cellular systems whether that's LTE or 5G NR.
Post reply on HN