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

381–390 of 433 posts

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

#381

Post by Spooky23 »

merpnderp wrote: post #298
corodra wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would and how many lives will be made better with 5g? Will it help people with debt? Will it increase housing supply to lower home ownership/renting costs? Will it help people stop overdosing? Maybe cool the climate a little? No. Itll help people watch someone on youtube play Fortnite.

Just because you’re mostly correct doesn’t mean you’re correct. My watch is always asking me if I’ve fallen and need emergency services (I horse around a lot), but wearable connected medical devices are and will be a big thing. I have lots of friends and family who kill time taking online courses or watching educational videos. This is the same argument badmouthing the Internet because of social media which ignores t…

The article is about opposition to small cell 5G pole mounted antenna, which are millimeter wave transmitters to replace legacy telephone and perhaps cable. These things will be used with fixed antennas, as they cannot penetrate buildings.

5G with traditional towers is completely different and not an issue.

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

#382

Post by Spooky23 »

kontorlaore wrote: post #289
missosoup wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> No, but they would download their content once and store it locally instead of repeatedly re-streaming it every time. That's like saying "people don't need to listen to the radio for the same pop songs, they can just play a CD with them"

That was a multi billion dollar industry.

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

#383

Post by Spooky23 »

bendbro wrote: post #181
apcragg wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That’s an open technology. How do carriers sell that?

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

#384

Post by Spooky23 »

xxpor wrote: post #232
rgrieselhuber wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Do you own a microwave oven?

More appropriately, do you operate a high frequency radar gun?

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

#385

Post by Spooky23 »

renaudg wrote: post #98
ilikehurdles wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Backhaul matters as well. If you do carrier comparisons at scale, it becomes obvious that the connectivity to the towers varies dramatically, as do network conditions, quality of proxies on the carrier network and other factors.

A fancy new 5G tower also has underutilized connectivity to it.

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

#386

Post by Spooky23 »

rayiner wrote: post #323
nilram wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

5G drastically eases the bottleneck on available spectrum. There’s tons of spectrum up in the millimeter wave bands, which means you don’t need to spend billions up front on spectrum to start deploying the technology. At the same time wireless dramatically reduces the cost per household served. The fan-out problem for wired internet is brutal. It can cost almost as much to bring fiber from a subdivision into each hou…

Perhaps in a perfect world where a competent local government owns the poles.

You may be shocked to hear that Verizon or Spectrum won’t provide cheap or timely service to competitors looking to rent pole space.

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

#387

Post by dreamcompiler »

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…

I'd be happy to have all the switches in my house be networked and smart as long as the switches, the devices they control, and the network in between are under my control. But sadly they won't be because the companies that sell me the switches will want to monetize me by owning and monitoring that network. To which I say "No thanks, I'll stick with dumb switches."

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

#388

Post by missosoup »

mort96 wrote: post #258
missosoup wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you choose to download and not store your copy after consuming the media, that's your choice.

Streaming takes that choice away from the user in the first place. With nothing gained in exchange.

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

#389

Post by Causality1 »

rhino369 wrote: post #376
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?

The reason their are low caps like 22GB is because LTE networks have limited bandwdith. These 5G networks will have 10X bandwidth. Eventually, the carriers will increase bandwidth caps.

That wasn't true for 3G/4G. Unlimited 3G plans were truly unlimited, and for a while 4G plans were also truly unlimited. My highest data usage in a month was 144GB. At no point in time were "unlimited" plans more restricted than they are now and there is no evidence that trend will suddenly reverse itself with 5G.

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

#390

Post by petre »

Koshkin wrote: post #358
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…

Why have a switch on a wall, even, when you have your phone with you all the time...

In case someone hacks your lights potentially triggering an epileptic seizure.
Post reply on HN