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

181–190 of 433 posts

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

#181

Post by bendbro »

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…

> Phase 2 formally introduces millimeter wave signaling - this is what does primarily propagates through line of sight (LOS) channels. Clever beam forming and beamsteering can alleviate this to an extent but these cells are intended for dense urban environments or interiors of large buildings.

Thanks for all the info. Why don't we just skip phase 2 and continue using wifi?

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

#182

Post by tunesmith »

Regarding the health impact of cellular transmission, has anyone noticed that even the google search results for this are a total trash heap? I have a friend that turns off bluetooth transmission for all his devices every night, uses only a wired headphone for his phone, and even unplugs his wifi router every night. He's someone that doesn't know the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. I was tempted to make fun of him for all of this, but after searching on google and seeing what came up, I can't really blame him.

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

#183

Post by Wowfunhappy »

clairity wrote: post #62
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

At the type of latencies needed for good VR, I’m not convinced any type of streaming from a remote server is going to work. You can’t beat the speed of light.

We’re only just starting to be able to do this with traditional video games (Stadia), where significantly higher latency is acceptible, and even that’s largely unproven.

If I’m wrong, well, I still think we should proove this tech over traditional cable + ethernet connections first, which already exist today.

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

#184

Post by tzs »

Some of the fear of 5G is driven by Russia. RT has run several segments about it. Here are some:

5G Wireless: A Dangerous 'Experiment on Humanity' [1]

Could 5G put more kids at risk for cancer? [2]

How To Survive Dangers of 5G [3]

Cancer risk? 5G wireless speeds could be dangerous [4]

‘Totally insane’: Telecomm Industry ignores 5G dangers [5]

According to the New York Times, citing a declassified U.S. intelligence report from early 2017, RT videos on YouTube average 1 million viewers per day, and that is the highest among news outlets. They also say that lots of blogs and websites are picking up RTs claims and repeating them, without mentioning where they came from.

Here's a Times story on this: "Your 5G Phone Won’t Hurt You. But Russia Wants You to Think Otherwise" [6]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_f9gpg4t6c

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpXEyP0WMrk

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO1gZhwqCvI

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmLwuM0_MJg

[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML7wx_5n2z8

[6] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/science/5g-phone-safety-h...

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

#185

Post by DenisM »

kube-system wrote: post #109
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 awfu…

By that logic a needle is a sword, a candle is a forest fire, and a cat is a lion. I question the value of drawing commonalities if this kind.

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

#186

Post by Causality1 »

tzs wrote: post #142
Causality1 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. What's the point in being able to use up the 22GB data cap on my "unlimited" plan in five minutes instead of seventy minutes?

You only need about 70 Kbit/second to use 22 GB in a month. Would you be happy with a wireless plan that only gave you 70 Kbit/second? Probably not. For the large number of people, probably a majority, who in most months don't hit their caps their two main annoyances with wireless performance are poor signal and things taking too long.

Yep. I'm just making the argument that there's no quality of life difference between a 40 megabit mobile connection and a 700 megabit one. If 5G came with a massive range improvement instead of a speed boost I'd be excited, but it doesn't. I can't check email at my grandparent's house now and I still won't be able to after 5G deployment.

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

#187

Post by reggieband »

nerdponx wrote: post #160
reggieband wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know you're getting downvoted for this controversial insinuation ... but I must admit my mind went there while I was reading these comments. The amount of FUD in this comment section, especially at the top, is almost suspicious. I get it that 5G doesn't exactly match the hype, that the cost of rollout is high, alternatives like improving 4G coverage and back-haul from towers are available, there are hints of proble…

That's not what the top comments are saying, though. They're all saying "5G is overhyped and not worth the investment".

The first sentence of my second paragraph is literally: "I get it that 5G doesn't exactly match the hype, that the cost of rollout is high, ..."

And the "5G overhyped, too expensive, not worth it" meme is what I am talking about as being suspicious. It's curious, the last time I commented on this very issue the responses were all that same meme. One can say "I hear the meme but have an alternative opinion" and the response is always "yes, but meme". When several voices are parroting a meme and somehow that saturates almost all of the top comments ... I get suspicious.

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

#188

Post by DenisM »

jchw wrote: post #15
DenisM wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, that it certainly isn't going to do unless wireless providers suddenly decide to stop capping data so tightly. I don't think wireless providers are cheaper today if you include things like that in the calculation. Not to mention many people already use AT&T and Verizon for their home internet...

Take a look into 5g, eg Verizon, - it’s aimed to be last mile competition, and have the same caps. Comcast is capped at 200gb, I imagine 5g would be similar.

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

#189

Post by Joeri »

tzs wrote: post #184

Some of the fear of 5G is driven by Russia. RT has run several segments about it. Here are some: 5G Wireless: A Dangerous 'Experiment on Humanity' [1] Could 5G put more kids at risk for cancer? [2] How To Survive Dangers of 5G [3] Cancer risk? 5G wireless speeds could be dangerous [4] ‘Totally insane’: Telecomm Industry ignores 5G dangers [5] According to the New York Times, citing a declassified U.S. intelligence re…

I’m reminded of the way the galactic empire in the foundation series descended into deliberate ignorance, with people actively turning their backs on technology, even while relying on it.

Anyone up for starting the church of 5G and sending out priests to install cell towers?

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

#190

Post by tzs »

liability wrote: post #159
tzs wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What copyright reform do you think we need for this?

Sane copyright expiration. e.g. damn the mouse.

The movies most in demand tend to be recent movies, so unless "sane copyright expiration" means a few months, I don't see how it would change the streaming situation.
Post reply on HN