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

401–410 of 433 posts

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

#401

Post by sschueller »

zw123456 wrote: post #346
sschueller wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that the general public doesn't know this is a failure of the carriers and FCC. Instead of clearly stating what the differences are and maybe not putting everything in the 5G bucket they got greedy and thought they could get it all. If the high frequency set was left out of 5Gs first round no one would have objected to the upgrade. I find the "We need 5G so we can have real time translation and autonomous ca…

one of the major reasons that so called mm-wave is far safer than previous low/ mid-band (i.e. < 6GHz) technologies is the following.mm-wave frequencies (e.g. 28Ghz) allow the use of array antennas (i.e. Phased Array Antennas, PAA's). The reason this is so much safer is because the PAA's produce "pencil width beams" that is, the beams are very narrow. Rather than blasting away in all directions like the sub-6Ghz band…

We cannot rely on devices always cutting communication when something goes in between. Do you trust all Chinese manufacturers to correctly implement such features? If 5g was a 5mW laser beam that would cut out on interference, would you trust it always working?

Mm waves may not be harmful to humans but there are some studies that show retinal damage in mice at certain frequencies. Until at least some studies on humans have been done we should not all jump into this like nothing can go wrong and it's guaranteed safe because communication is cut automatically on interference.

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

#402

Post by stallmanite »

corodra wrote: post #293
asdff wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a real shame internet is controlled by telecoms

To be fair though... are you willing to pay to run miles upon miles upon miles of copper or fiber? For free? Someone has to do it. And they really dont feel like doing and flip burgers too.

I thought they got millions of dollars in subsidies over the past decades to do run the wires? Not exactly doing it for free n’est-ce pas?

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

#403

Post by wlesieutre »

wongarsu wrote: post #164
inimino wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Being able to mount buttons anywhere is nice, and Philips even has a switch that works without batteries (the power for the Zigbee radio comes from the button press). Sending a signal over 5G to the internet and back however sounds like peak inefficiency for two devices in the same room that could choose any local wireless protocol

The module in that switch is made by EnOcean, they go back to at least 2006 (though the 2.4 GHz versions are more recent)

https://www.automation.com/products/enocean-announces-wirele...

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

#405

Post by zw123456 »

zw123456 wrote: post #5

One thing that a lot of people do not understand is that 5G can operate in any frequency band. In fact, for many 4G radios it is nothing more than a software upgrade, no change to the physical device or power levels, just faster and lower throughput.

oops, I meant to saw lower latency and higher throughput.

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

#406

Post by corodra »

stallmanite wrote: post #402
corodra wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair though... are you willing to pay to run miles upon miles upon miles of copper or fiber? For free? Someone has to do it. And they really dont feel like doing and flip burgers too.

I thought they got millions of dollars in subsidies over the past decades to do run the wires? Not exactly doing it for free n’est-ce pas?

I do believe it changes by state, but they do get payouts for doing a large portion of the project. However, the way it worked in the past, they pay a monthly lease to the city for using the land. For example, cell towers can cost 2k-10k a month. Depending on the land owner. Thia can also be private property, like farmers.

However, like in Florida, telecom lobbied the fuck out of the state to cap the lease rate to $150 a box and a lot less out of pocket for the telecom. I'm a capitalist and a Republican. But that shit right there, can kiss my hairy butthole.

I guess what also angers me is the unicorn dreams and wishes people think 5g is. It's a business. Telecom gives zero shits about innovation or making the world a better place. They want their pound of flesh and will take the blood too. 4g payouts have slowed for them. That's why they want to suck more blood using 5g.

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

#407

Post by corodra »

esmi wrote: post #352
corodra wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can already stream online courses and watch educational videos with 4g... same with wireless medical devices. What does 5g offer that 4g already hasn't?

Lower latency

Ok, everyone says this. But by how much? Half a second? I load a video on youtube now with maybe 3 out of 5 bars and it starts playing in one maybe two seconds. I need to buy a new phone for what now? I need to agree to higher taxes or cut community spending in my city for what now? So my video goes from a 1 second load to half a second?

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

#408

Post by jodrellblank »

inimino wrote: post #302
jodrellblank wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't follow what you're suggesting; Where are you implying that asciident heard that 5G is "trash technology" and "doesn't work well"?

"I heard someone used it and it didn't work well" is the same level of evidence as product reviews, and is strong enough for all of us to make day to day judgements on. "I read the spec and the spec says it should be good" is not strong evidence - all spec would say that, or be revised until it said that. Yet still bad products abound.

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

#409

Post by lern_too_spel »

liability wrote: post #272
lern_too_spel wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix and Amazon Prime Video already offer the ability to download and play later, so there is no need to extrapolate, and we do know that.

As I understand it, those features come with considerable DRM limitations. So no, it's really not the same.

They don't come with any practical limitations, so it is really the same.

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

#410

Post by pas »

liability wrote: post #171
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most people's personal use of computers hasn't kept up with the capabilities of the high-end of consumer grade products Increasingly, consumers don’t even own a personal computer. (Unless we’re being pedantic and calling our phones PCs.) Asking what a PC will do with faster mobile internet will be misleading.

I feel that you're deliberately missing the point. Most users don't max out their '4G' connections either.

Yet the current 4G mesh is not enough to support higher overall utilization, hence 5G.
Post reply on HN