Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, and FCC Bullying • Hacker News Board

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

#421

Post by jdietrich » Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 9:06 PM UTC

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?

That depends very much on your definition of "London" and "Denver". Your first figure refers to the population density of Greater London, a vast area covering much of what used to be the Home Counties. Your second figure refers solely to Denver City rather than the broader Denver-Aurora-Lakewood metropolitan statistical area, much of which is functionally suburban Denver.

I don't think it's particularly useful to attempt to pin down a fixed definition of the boundaries of either city, particularly one as amorphous as London. Suffice it to say that London is densely populated, Inner London is even more densely populated and rush hour on the tube is genuinely insane; Londoners regularly encounter densities that simply don't occur in most US cities outside of a football stadium and have a subsequent need for far higher throughput than 4G can deliver.

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

#422

Post by esmi » Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 10:08 PM UTC

corodra wrote: post #407

esmi wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Time to video start is a bandwidth thing. Latency is the time it takes a packet to do a round trip. Typical 4G latency in the US is about 50mS and 5G is not yet faster because it’s still heavily reliant on the 4G infrastructure. It is expected to drop to 1mS as the rollout continues. This will have a significant impact on interactive content.

I think you’re conflating a few things though.

1) 5G spec improvements which do exist and are measurable today 2) your perceived value of those improvements 3) the FCC mandates in the US, which is currently being challenged

You might not want the improvements. Others may. The real issue, IMHO, is the FCC mandates. Although the challenge has a risk for technology too. If the courts agree that there is a possible health risk to RF I have no idea what kind of pandora’s box that opens.

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

#423

Post by nkurz » Mon, Aug 26, 2019, 12:32 AM UTC

inimino wrote: post #415

nkurz wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think the problem may be that "order of magnitude more" means different things to different people. Colloquially, it does get used to mean "a lot more", and some people use it because it sounds more scientific. But in a more correct sense, it means "closer to 10x than 1x or 100x": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude#Definition.

I personally dislike the phrase and try to avoid it. But if one is going to use it, I think it should be used correctly.

(I agree with jdietrich that the definition of "city" matters)

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

#424

Post by tehlike » Mon, Aug 26, 2019, 12:56 AM UTC

epmaybe wrote: post #144

tehlike wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might unblock new products. Being uneducated on 5g in particular, low latency fast internet can result in proliferation of mobile ar/ve devices, and bring internet to towns that otherwise dont have cable/fiber wiring, etc. There are some efforts in robotics that would have much better ux if they had faster internet in remote places. You can imagine stadia running on mobile on the extreme. Everything cloud streamed…

There are definitely a lot of ideas and research behind them that are just waiting for more accessible low-latency internet connections. Robotic surgery was an interesting one for me, as the latency was a tremendous bottleneck for remote applications.

Yes! From the days of 14400kbps(my first dialup connection), to 56kbps, to 128k, 1mb and now 1gb, each one of them found more use few years after they are introduced.

5g wont be an exception.

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

#425

Post by lozf » Mon, Aug 26, 2019, 1:05 AM UTC

corodra wrote: post #319

merpnderp wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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?

5g has higher capacity, but shorter range, so cells will need to be closer together, i.e. greater density - therefore location tracking precision will appear to improve, so the big corporations will be better able to finely tune targeted ads in HD to a more specific demographic of consumers.

5G offers:-

- bigger numbers and promise of a brighter future for consumers that are impressed by that kind of thing and are happy to trade their privacy for perceived benefits / status.

- And probably some more tangible benefits for those who would attempt to track or advertise as much as possible to monetize the masses.

- And as you clearly understand, nothing particularly beneficial to the rest of us, but we'll join in when eventually forced to through one upgrade or another as usual.

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

#426

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Aug 26, 2019, 2:34 AM UTC

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.

[deleted]

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

#427

Post by jodrellblank » Mon, Aug 26, 2019, 12:17 PM UTC

inimino wrote: post #414

jodrellblank wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is it not a common trope on HN itself, the software engineer who stridently argues that their service is good because it has $list-of-tech, ignoring the users who don’t like it?

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

#428

Post by Wowfunhappy » Mon, Aug 26, 2019, 3:18 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #76

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was repeating what I've read. When The Washington Post reported[1] about NOAA director Neil Jacobs's testimony before congress on the issue, they wrote: > With this reduced forecast skill, the European model would not have predicted 2012′s Superstorm Sandy hitting the Northeast coast several days in advance, Jacobs said. Instead, the model would have steered the storm out to sea. Lead time to prepare for the storm…

> Was The Washington Post mistaken? No, they’re reporting on a valid dialectic. The topic of the story is the discussion, not the science. (The Post is a political paper. That their May story produced zero further reporting from reputable sources is a hint.) In lieu of listening to the hearing [1], the American Institute of Physicists (AIP) provides a good summary [2]. TL; DR The Science Committee is debating emissio…

> Nobody suggests scrapping 5G.

Neither am I! I am suggesting (and advocating) that we slow down so that these concerns can be taken seriously. Quoting from The Verge again:

> How did the wireless industry respond to [meteorological concerns]? By writing a blog post accusing meteorologists from across three government agencies of “risking our 5G leadership.” The implication, of course, is that worrying about detecting major weather events could make us lose the race.

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

#429

Post by jodrellblank » Mon, Aug 26, 2019, 6:51 PM UTC

jodrellblank wrote: post #427

inimino wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is it not a common trope on HN itself, the software engineer who stridently argues that their service is good because it has $list-of-tech, ignoring the users who don’t like it?

I would edit, but too late; here is a HN recommendation thread about non-Macbook laptops: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20795113 In it, there are people saying that Intel - nVidia GPU switching has problems on some laptops.

If I take your position as stated: 1) Those claims, by the time they to us, are hearsay and therefore have no value. 2) An Intel engineer stating that they have more knowledge and it should work well, is not hearsay and does have value. 3) Whether the Intel engineer respects the reader or not, matters.

Am I misrepresenting anything in your position here? If not, then I feel the opposite about all three points. This isn't about engineer vs user's knowledge, it's about differences between design-intent and real-world result.

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

#430

Post by inimino » Mon, Aug 26, 2019, 9:21 PM UTC

jodrellblank wrote: post #429

jodrellblank wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it not a common trope on HN itself, the software engineer who stridently argues that their service is good because it has $list-of-tech, ignoring the users who don’t like it?

I would edit, but too late; here is a HN recommendation thread about non-Macbook laptops: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20795113 In it, there are people saying that Intel - nVidia GPU switching has problems on some laptops. If I take your position as stated: 1) Those claims, by the time they to us, are hearsay and therefore have no value. 2) An Intel engineer stating that they have more knowledge and it should…

> Am I misrepresenting anything in your position here?

Yes.

1) I never said "no value". The claims have value. Call it 2 bits per claim, with diminishing returns after the first few.

2) The Intel engineer has considerably more context, and more on the line, so their claim has considerably more weight. Call it... 8 bits. If they say it should work, then it should work, and if other people say it doesn't work, that doesn't mean someone is wrong, it might just mean that it should work, but for someone it isn't working, for whatever other reasons.

3) If the Intel engineer tells you your opinion is wrong or out of date, you should probably give that considerably more weight than if some random person on the internet without that context says it.

The engineer working in the field can be expected to know a lot more about both the intended design, the actual build, and the real-world issues arising in practice compared to what any individual user would know about any of those things. This is generally why experts don't like to engage with non-experts; the non-experts' priors on who to trust are likely to be all out of whack.