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

251–260 of 433 posts

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

#251

Post by Wowfunhappy »

michaelmrose wrote: post #216
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

360 video is not going to take off because it’s a sucky experience. “Real” VR with positional tracking makes you feel like you’re in another space, and has lots of potential for that reason. 360 video does not.

I'm not sure what 360 video even is. AR stands for Augmented reality, the overlay of information and artificial constructs over the real world in such a way as as one can both perceive the artificial constructs and interact with the real world simultaneously. Nobody will view this by holding their phone up and looking at the world through their phone screen. Real products in development use glasses. Science fiction d…

A 360° video is one which has been recorded with a 360° field of view. Add in software + a head mounted display, and you can turn your head to view the video in different directions.

It's a fun novelty, but it should not be conflated with VR. If you move your head forwards or backwards (as opposed to rotating your head), the environment does not adjust itself to match your new position, because it's just a prerecorded video. Without this ability, you can't trick your brain into believing it's in a real place.

I only brought up 360° video because the GP mentioned "livestreaming videos to VR headsets [at] 2x8k@120hz", and there's no other type of video you can stream to a VR headset†. Real VR, with positional tracking, needs a 3D modeled environment, like a video game. We may be on the cusp of being able to stream traditional video games, but VR needs much lower latency than that—around 30ms for absolutely everything in the chain.

I don't think AR is any different in this regard. If the processing is being done on-device the assets are small and you don't need 5G. If the processing is being done remotely, you've got that same latency problem.

How does 5G benefit AR?

---

† Well, okay, there have been some weird experiments, but they preclude standard resolution measurements. They also require an order of magnitude more data—5G won't cut it.

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

#252

Post by asdff »

jodrellblank wrote: post #115
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…

Counter counterpoint, humans have ears and eyes and already have streaming audio and video. Those things were clearly desirable and now possible. What are the legitimate new capabilities you're thinking of, which many people desire, but can't have primarily because of (mobile) internet speeds?

Some of the advantages of 5g come from using it as a home connection. My building is locked in with spectrum and I'm limited to 100mbps, despite ATT serving fiber all over town. I can't do anything about it because it would require having a telecom wire our building for their service, the equivalent of moving heaven and earth.

If I could pick up a 5g signal I could opt for that instead. It's like suddenly having an option for installing a dish instead of whatever the cable company serves you.

As far as speed, I'm not holding my breath. In a previous apartment I did actually have fiber but it wasn't the game changer I thought it would be. Downloads and streaming are capped at a point. The only way to actually use all of this horsepower I had was with bittorrent, and boy it downloaded stuff so fast that the write speed on my drive became a significant bottleneck. I even demoed Googles project stream and while that worked OK, I still got a lot of hickups and low quality stream moments that showed how far away the delivery technlogy was (AC:O was playable but there was way too much latency for a multiplayer game to stream with this technology), even if I had the very best internet on the market.

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

#253

Post by [deleted] »

m12k wrote: post #236
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 can't see any way Russia benefits from the 5G hysteria directly. So I wonder if they use this as a way to screen for impressionable people in the West that they can then later use for spreading more 'useful' misinformation?

[deleted]

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

#254

Post by liability »

tzs wrote: post #190
liability wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If that truly is the distribution of demand, then the media industry should have little to fear from such dramatic copyright reform (of course they would disagree!)

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

#255

Post by enjo »

rgrieselhuber wrote: post #150
apcragg wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I worry in particular about the towers being in close proximity to schools and housing developments.

It really is the 1980’a again...

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

#256

Post by asdff »

thekyle wrote: post #103
didibus wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's the current plan with 5G.

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

#257

Post by achievingApathy »

Isn't this also a facet of our "war" with the rest of the world to be at the forefront of technology? There are those that think ceding being the first in things like AI would be so detrimental to the US economy that we'd never recover.

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

#258

Post by mort96 »

missosoup wrote: post #200
mort96 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No, but they would download their content once and store it locally instead of repeatedly re-streaming it every time. IF you have children, you're probably familiar with the concept of streaming Frozen for the 50th time. If you're using netflix or spotify or similar, you're probably also familiar with the concept of something that was previously available just vanishing because of circumstances outside of your contro…

I get that you would want something local if you happen to re-watch the same things again and again. I don't, and keeping local copies of something in case I want to re-watch it is a waste of space.

Stuff being available exclusively through streaming is certainly a way to enforce DRM, but that doesn't mean people wouldn't still largely be streaming even if stuff was available for download without DRM too.

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

#259

Post by PGenes »

Would I be correct in stating that for 5G to be effective, the transmitter needs to be much closer to people than current towers. Also, there are currently legal limits on how much radiation may be transmitted by cell towers. It follows that it is not unreasonable that there may be be health effects. Arguments about China and Korea are actually quite scary because they provide justification for ignoring any health effects.

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

#260

Post by liability »

wongarsu wrote: post #145
chvid wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny how people even on a tech website seems to be stuck at "640 KB is enough for everyone". When technology gets a lot cheaper, a lot more powerful, a lot less power consuming, the magic of the market creates completely new categories of use that unlock new demand at consumers. Right now your phone has a sim-card. There might be one in your tablet or your car too. But there is not one in your TV or the lights in yo…

> But there is not one in your TV or the lights in your bathroom. But at some point telecommunications technology is going to be so cheap that drawing a wire to connect a button to a light is going to be the expensive option. For stationary objects like TVs and lights we already have wifi, and a range of simpler low-power options used by IoT basestations. What does 5G bring to the table here?

WiFi makes it easy[ish] for consumers to firewall their IoT bullshit to inhibit spying. IoT devices with cellular radios promises to remove even this small level of control from consumers.
Post reply on HN