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

411–420 of 433 posts

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

#411

Post by pas »

liability wrote: post #260
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?

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.

You can already buy a nanocell/femtocell. Probably with 5G and "LTE-WLAN aggregation" it'll eventually be easy to secure your network.

At least if enough people are willing to care about, advocate and pay for this feature.

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

#412

Post by pas »

_bxg1 wrote: post #194
np_tedious wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can hear some particularly wild assertions like this in the long running commercial throughout the past few episodes of Malcolm Gladwell's Revisionist History podcast. They are formatted as conversation between Gladwell and an AT&T exec. It always starts with "what are some things that might be enabled if bandwidth improved and latency decreased" and then just jumps immediately to some Internet of Things utopia.

Decreasing latency seems more like a material improvement, but I wasn't aware 5G impacted that. Our current peak of bandwidth, on the other hand, is pretty much as much as you could need for any given media.

5G impacts it because the high frequency parts need a lot more cells. Therefore the overall available airtime per user/device is goint waaay up. Which is good for low latency.

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

#413

Post by pas »

avianlyric wrote: post #365
_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 can understand why “faster internet” is good or even great thing. We’re seeing all kinds of new streaming tech that can take advantage of more bandwidth. Something that does confuse me though, is the way 5G is being touted as the solution to better home internet in the US. It only going to fast in cities, which are the perfect place for fibre or even wireless ISP using normal WiFi running point-to-point between bui…

Well, if 5G brings base station prices (and all the related equipment's) even further down, it could help poor communities.

But so far the problem seems to be simple density related. Laying/installing new cabling does not worth it in many places, because of the overhead costs. (The fixed costs.)

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

#414

Post by inimino »

jodrellblank wrote: post #408
inimino wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 rev…

They picked up some random news articles and some hearsay. Maybe product reviews are where you get your info, then don't be surprised if you talk to actual engineers and they don't have a lot of respect for your opinions.

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

#415

Post by inimino »

nkurz wrote: post #350
jdietrich wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The population density in London is an order of magnitude higher than in Denver. That has an obvious impact on air congestion, which is one of the primary limiting factors on cellular network performance.

That sounded high, so I checked: London Density 14,670/sq mi (5,666/km2) ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London ) Denver Density 4,519.94/sq mi (1,745.15/km2) ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver ) London has a population density 3.25x that of Denver. Why exaggerate when the facts are on your side? Or more specifically, why make an explicit numeric claim without confirming that it's correct?

"order of magnitude" is literally the least explicit you can be without just saying "lots bigger". Why be overly pedantic?

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

#416

Post by inimino »

renaudg wrote: post #123
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't look like like your old "4G" was legitimate full performance LTE. Cell carriers lie and demur about what performance they actually provide. You can't trust the number to mean anything.

It was definitely a busy area and dozens of Mbps are more typical on 4G. My point is that real world 5G is an order of magnitude faster than real world 4G, much like 4G was in comparison to 3G.

Your 5G, and your 4G. That doesn't mean it is the 5G that is the difference, unless you did an exhaustive root cause investigation of the poor performance of the 4G.

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

#417

Post by pas »

Spooky23 wrote: post #19

This is a shitty issue, because you have the uncertainty of health claims, with extreme claims that may even be ginned up to discredit opposition. My beef with 5G is the arguments for these disruptive rollouts are almost entirely bullshit. The United States is not in a race to drop a telephone pole with a short range antenna in front of my home. In the name of national security, Verizon and AT&T essentially get to do…

Any pending suits against this FCC decision? Or against Verizon for that unnecessary pole placement?

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

#418

Post by kontorlaore »

Spooky23 wrote: post #382
kontorlaore wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Which was killed by streaming, not by people storing songs locally.

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

#419

Post by Spooky23 »

kontorlaore wrote: post #418
Spooky23 wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was a multi billion dollar industry.

Which was killed by streaming, not by people storing songs locally.

No, it was killed by piracy. Streaming broke Apple’s dominance.

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

#420

Post by jfim »

reaperducer wrote: post #400
will4274 wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bi…

That's cheaper, if you take into account inflation.
Post reply on HN