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

391–400 of 433 posts

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

#391

Post by firecall »

_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.)

In Australia I hear the parroted argument that our NBN effort was pointless because 5G will save us all :-/

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

#392

Post by asdff »

DenisM wrote: post #185
kube-system wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Kinda. It would be like if all you knew of cats were vicious lions, then one day a house cat came about and a journalist correctly called it a cat. Is your perspective wrong or baseless? Absolutely not, in this world most cats are lions and can rip your face off. Your perspective just hasn't expanded yet to include the docile cat, so of course you react in fear.

You aren't at fault, neither is the person telling you that both lions and house cats are both cats. Over time, these early misunderstandings iron themselves out, and everyone sees a lion for a lion and a domestic cat for a domestic cat. Ignore the early public recoil from any new concept, it's not worth fretting over.

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

#393

Post by asdff »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #361
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.

This is the same thing. Tech bros on here supporting NIMBYism though is scary, didn't think that would happen on HN

Inevitable if their tech salary was spent on property. People let their spirit die for wealth.

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

#394

Post by Dylan16807 »

greenhatman wrote: post #347
corodra wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, that's a very fair statement I can agree to. However, I mostly argue that the taxpayer cost doesn't justify the gains. It's expensive and most counties and cities have to foot the bill or heavily subsidize it. If the telecom company wants to foot the bill. Good on them. No arguement here. If the city has to, go fuck yourselves. Its diminishing returns to a ridiculous level.

5G will probably drive AR and VR adoption. Enabling remote surgery, and other things like that. Who knows what else. Really we have no idea of the the doors it could happen. In the 90s many people thought the internet was a gimmick or a fad. Today the most successful companies are built on it. It's very likely the same will be true for 5G enabled technologies and companies.

AR in a few circumstances, maybe. VR has better connection options. Remote surgery is definitely not using a cell connection.

5G is not a revolutionary tech when we already have wifi and 4G.

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

#395

Post by Dylan16807 »

liability wrote: post #267
rorykoehler wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wirelessly?

I hope you're aware that uBeam is a scam which cannot work.

There are perfectly valid electromagnetic methods for doing wireless power.

Not that you'd ever use them for a light bulb.

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

#396

Post by Dylan16807 »

petre wrote: post #390
Koshkin wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is that the most notable example? I mean... "Around 1 in 100 people has epilepsy and of these people, around 3% have photosensitive epilepsy."

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

#397

Post by antpls »

_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.)

5G is designed to enable the Internet of Things, not just to improve speed and watch videos.

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

#398

Post by nerdponx »

reggieband wrote: post #187
nerdponx wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 re…

I mean, I haven't been paid off by anyone but that's exactly how I feel about it too. HN has a lot of memes -- you probably just agree with most of them and don't notice.

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

#399

Post by scotty79 »

pdimitar wrote: post #370
greenhatman wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Services and products that will utilize more bandwidth aren't being built, because they're not usable without 5G. 5G needs to become ubiquitous before we'd find out what the new applications will be. G5 will also reduce latency a lot, which is another vector that will open new possibilities.

But again, nobody wants to talk about how the reduced latency will empower even further the continuous surveillance we're being subjected to by our own devices. Even as a techie, at some point I want to draw the line.

For me, if full state of each of my neurons can't be transferred in realtime to a server, we don't have enough 'surveillance'.

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

#400

Post by reaperducer »

will4274 wrote: post #372
reaperducer wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it will or should bring competition to Comcast and cable companies alike! I'll believe it when it happens. DSL was going to break the chains of the dialup overlords. Cable was going to break the chains of the DSL overlords. Fiber was going to break the chains of the cable overlords. Fixed wireless was going to break the chains of the fiber overlords. My prediction: 5G data providers will pull the same tricks as w…

It's not correct to say that prices never fall. I purchased 5 mbps fiber from Verizon when it was brand new - $60 / month in 2005, I think. Today, Comcast's bottom tier is 15 mbps, at $30 / month. DSL-speed internet (768 kbps) isn't even available as an option. The market might not function as competitively as it should in the US, but it still functions - new, cheaper tech eventually results in lower prices for consu…

My experience has been different.

I was going through some old papers a couple of weeks ago and found some bills. My cable ISP bill from 2002 that I found was $103/month after taxes and fees. Seventeen years later, I pay $106/month.

Back then, the only other choice I had for internet was dialup. Today my other choices include DSL, fiber, and fixed wireless. So, I have more competition now; but I don't have a lower bill.

Post reply on HN