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

301–310 of 433 posts

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

#301

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

rayiner wrote: post #296
_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.)

Among other things, 5G holds the promise of making traditional wired telecom regulation obsolete, by getting rid of the last mile problem, reducing the tendency toward natural monopoly, and enabling competition.

On a cautionary note, the past 25 years of technology have promised that they "enable competition" (anyone else remember the late 90s ethos of "anyone with a computer can publish on the web!"), yet here we are stuck with Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc. which are some of the largest monopolies in world history.

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

#302

Post by inimino »

jodrellblank wrote: post #299
inimino wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 expe…

The point is not that information from all sources is equally valid, the point is the parent is dismissing information without knowing what the source even is. I don't know the original commenter, their knowledge, or their source. But as the replying person says " assumption that my knowledge is more " - that is an assumption. Why not check that assumption? Then they go on to say " I mean my sources are the actual 5G…

> dismissing information without knowing what the source even is

What someone says gives a very strong signal for where they heard it.

Yes, you could perhaps challenge the relevance of the standards here, but to do that, you would need to provide strong evidence.

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

#303

Post by nilram »

rayiner wrote: post #296
_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.)

Among other things, 5G holds the promise of making traditional wired telecom regulation obsolete, by getting rid of the last mile problem, reducing the tendency toward natural monopoly, and enabling competition.

I don’t see how it reduces competition since the technology requires even more bass stations then does 4G. More infrastructure equals more cost equals more investment required. Only the big players can afford this, and there’s only a few big players left.

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

#304

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

_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.)

I definitely didn't understand anything about 5G being better at fixed locations, e.g. factories, where the comparison isn't really against 4G, but against wifi. What benefit does 5G have over the latest 802.11 spec?

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

#305

Post by CamperBob2 »

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.

Why don't you demand actual reproducible evidence before worrying? Nonionizing radiation has not been shown to be harmful, but self-inflicted psychological stress certainly has.

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

#306

Post by mcguire »

chvid wrote: post #141
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…

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…

5G is a step back. It's a short range link, which may be nice in a densely populated area, but is useless outside that. And it already seems like providers are rolling back 4G support in rural areas.

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

#307

Post by proverbialbunny »

corodra wrote: post #43

Reality is, it's also far more expensive to install 5g. It requires more fiber lines to run to more poles. Also, the telecom companies lobbied on state levels the max cities can charge for renting out putting stuff on poles. Plus trying to get cities to foot the bill. We are at the speed point of diminishing returns, 5g being said point. It's more money for not a real quality of life increase. I dont want my city to…

Do you think running more fiber to the last mile will give more people the opportunity to have gigabit fiber ran to their home?

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

#308

Post by [deleted] »

jorblumesea wrote: post #248
harshreality wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix, youtube, and facebook can stream fine on lower bandwidth links. The economic value of high resolution mobile streaming seems rather low, at best. Most likely negative, because most content is just time-wasting, and because content that actually matters tends to not depend so much on resolution beyond SD or basic HD (720p). Other potential applications, as mentioned elsewhere, tend to run into 5G not being fa…

> Netflix, youtube, and facebook can stream fine on lower bandwidth links. They really cannot, at least with quality levels that make people actually want to watch them. > The economic value of high resolution mobile streaming seems rather low, at best. Many multi-billion dollar companies and streaming services would disagree. As would many investors. > Most likely negative, because most content is just time-wasting,…

[deleted]

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

#309

Post by mcguire »

dwaltrip wrote: post #215
wongarsu wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

That's the point. We don't know all of the future applications. But it's very unlikely to be nothing interesting. Do you think everyday appliances in the 50 years will function essentially the same as today? It's a very general enhancement in capability with lots of potential but currently unknown use cases. I say this while also recognizing that most IoT stuff today is overhyped BS.

Yes?

A refrigerator will still keep things cold. A stove will still heat things up. An AC will still AC. Other than home automation systems that go belly up when their servers go offline, most things do the same thing they did 50 years ago.

5g isn't revolutionary.

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

#310

Post by mcguire »

inimino wrote: post #146
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…

> drawing a wire to connect a button to a light How are you getting power to the light?

1 word: ultrasonics.
Post reply on HN