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

201–210 of 433 posts

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

#201

Post by TwelveNights »

Joeri wrote: post #189
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?

Nucleics gave the people so much more than what 5G gives to us. I would imagine that it would be very difficult to impress anyone with the advantages it brings, versus being able to levitate and emit light.

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

#202

Post by 420codebro »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #89
amluto wrote: post #7

I find the argument that 5G is at all unsafe on a pole to be a bit silly. I think there are a couple of much more serious issues: 1. Is a millimeter-wave transmitter in a phone safe? The power output is moderately high, and these wavelengths are absorbed near the surface of your skin or your cornea . Cellphones are held near faces all the time. So I’d be much more concerned about using a 5G phone than about living ne…

> these wavelengths are absorbed near the surface of your skin or your cornea And they'd cause a... slight heating effect. That's about it. So yeah, if you held your voice transmitting phone directly to your face for several decades, you might create enough tissue damage to up the cancer risk. But then the radio engineers I used to work with climbed radio towers with microwave emitters putting out far far far more en…

I hope that was a long time ago (RF safety). Now a days most places I have seen (towers and the like) have very clear marked boundaries of "DO NOT STEP PAST THIS POINT WHEN RF EMITTER IS IN OPERATION" type warnings. I believe these are all certified by a RF site survey analysis AFTER the site is dialed in (positioned) to understand the exact radiation pattern and drop-off points.

While the energy is pretty much harmless even 5 or 10 feet away from the initial radiation point, you definitely don't want to risk it by potentially cooking yourself when only a few inches away...

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

#203

Post by ggg3 »

mort96 wrote: post #169
liability wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Streaming pre-recorded video (e.g. movies) over the radio is wildly inefficient considering flash memory costs peanuts. The primary reason it's done is because we're in desperate need of copyright reform (streaming is being used by the video industry as a form of DRM.)

That's not true though. It's not like the people who currently spend lots of time watching niche videos on YouTube (myself included) would start ordering flash memory with those videos instead if only it wasn't for copyright. The case for movies is a bit stronger, but my family's movie/TV show routine is to figure out what we want to watch last minute, then find that on netflix or crunchyroll or piracy sites and then…

you are talking like someone who grew up with analog radio and now can't understand advanced signal encoding beyond the basic change from analog to ttl.

the comment you are responding to is not implying you go back to buying media. but that media already transfered to my nearby network should be cached locally.

but as with the move from analog to digital, the old guard will have a very hard time to grasp distributed web now while it change the world around us (i'm including myself on the blid group btw. I wish I could see better what is comming)

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

#204

Post by davb »

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…

I had a similar experience (also on Three) when 4G first rolled out. Blazing speed, low latency, low contention. Unfortunately as the technology became more mainstream, the speeds dropped and peak contention increased.

A small scale roll-out is absolutely not indicative of real-world performance.

In Glasgow, I'm getting around 5Mbps on Three over 4G. In Japan and South Korea I regularly got far in excess of 100Mbps over 4G.

It's more about backhaul bandwidth and capacity planning than radio technology. 4G is more capable than you'd think, and any speed real-world increase we see with 5G is almost certainly down to better network design.

Edit: autocorrect typo - "tech logo" to "technology"

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

#205

Post by Wowfunhappy »

petra wrote: post #196
clairity wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

AR for businesses(like AR repair manuals, etc) seems like a good idea. But in that case , downloading the data locally seems like a real option.

And if the AR processing is being done on device—which I think it has to be due to latency, even under 5G—the data to be downloaded really isn’t that large. We’re talking images and 3D models.

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

#206

Post by scottlegrand2 »

liability wrote: post #175
deanCommie wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could, but...they don't want to. So they won't!

You don't know that. Currently consumers don't have the (legal) option, so extrapolating their current behavior to their potential desires is fallacious.

I download entire seasons of TV series with my Android Netflix client all the time. It's fantastic for travel.

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

#207

Post by inimino »

jodrellblank wrote: post #121
apcragg wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Information is not equally likely to be valid regardless of the source it came from.

This is the curse of being an expert (on anything) and engaging with kooks who think they are experts because they read something on the internet.

If you had direct experiences and you share them, those shouldn't be ridiculed, but if you pass on information that is not from your direct experience and which people who have direct experience believe to be false... that's also, as you say, "not a good look".

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

#208

Post by scottlegrand2 »

dmix wrote: post #70
np_tedious wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Clearly all it needs is a blockchain component to succeed.

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

#209

Post by godelski »

_bxg1 wrote: post #192
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…

But what media is still constrained by bandwidth? There isn't really anything else. We already stream audio and video at pretty much the highest fidelity humans can perceive.

Video is still pretty constrained by bandwidth. I still have songs buffer at times. So I wouldn't even say our current media isn't constrained. Additionally we'll probably see new uses for that bandwidth, just the same way we have found new uses in the past and every people again said we already have enough. That notion is ridiculous.

We can already guess at some use cases. AR, VR, or other types of environment simulation. Data processing for vehicles: cars, trucks, drones. And I'm sure that people will figure out more things they can do. But the notion of "there isn't anything else" so why do we need more, is like saying 640K is all you'll ever need (I know he didn't actually say that, but the myth stands)

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

#210

Post by jdietrich »

ilikehurdles wrote: post #96
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.

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.

The population density in London is an order of magnitude higher than in Denver. That has an obvious impact on air congestion, which is one of the primary limiting factors on cellular network performance.
Post reply on HN