Cities protesting 5g

[tangoseal]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ws...health-aestheticsand-fcc-bullying-11566619391

 

[viivo]

See, this is why China etc., etc.

Mr. Tibbetts: “I won’t be surprised if in 10 years there’s no evidence of cancer from these towers[...]

I'm betting that won't stop him and similar idiots from citing public health safety as the main reason they are against the towers. Definitely nothing to do with voters whining about property values.

At least it's not a political issue. Yet.

 

[Deleted member 89137]

I don't really understand the actual point of 5G, it seems to be hopelessly flawed by the use of super high frequencies and their lack of distance travelled and nearly complete requirement to have line of site and good weather. Maybe I'm wrong but that's what I've read about it so far, and it really seems like the technology is going to cost these companies a shitload of money to install in cities, and anywhere that isn't urban is going to have sporadic coverage or no coverage at all in terms of 5g. They have to have 5g antennas facing in multiple directions on nearly have street pole... High speeds are pointless if you only get them in certain super specific conditions.

That said, I have no fucking clue what they are on about in terms of aesthetics. You mean that telephone pole that always looked like shit, somehow looks shittier with some fancy antennas on top of it? Give me a fucking break.

Can anyone paste the article here? It's being blocked for some reason.

 

[Brian_B]

I didn't go through the paywall, but just reading the teaser - sounds like they want 5G to be covered similarly to Prop 65 (the required "everything causes cancer in the state of CA" law), and they are afraid the towers will be ugly. I love seeing the towers that get camoflauged as pine trees... it's worse than seeing a regular tower, but they do whatever the city council or whatever makes them do in order to get the permit.

I can see a point to 5G - better is always better. But this is an incremental and situational upgrade from LTE - it's only getting all the buzz it is because:

a) Telecoms want something to buzz about, so they can start selling new devices on new more expensive service plans
b) Trade war with china

So everyone points to the one single benchmark where a 5G service will hit 1GB, ignore the fact that it only hits those speeds in areas where user density already has adequate high speed hardline coverage and average service is going to be LTE-level, and hope they are able to cash in on the early gold rush... because once the actual user reviews come out, I think everyone will get over it pretty quickly. Sure, devices will migrate to it eventually, but I don't think people will be willing to spend a lot of extra money to get it.

 

[4saken]

I don't really understand the actual point of 5G, it seems to be hopelessly flawed by the use of super high frequencies and their lack of distance travelled and nearly complete requirement to have line of site and good weather. Maybe I'm wrong but that's what I've read about it so far, and it really seems like the technology is going to cost these companies a shitload of money to install in cities, and anywhere that isn't urban is going to have sporadic coverage or no coverage at all in terms of 5g. They have to have 5g antennas facing in multiple directions on nearly have street pole... High speeds are pointless if you only get them in certain super specific conditions.

That said, I have no fucking clue what they are on about in terms of aesthetics. You mean that telephone pole that always looked like shit, somehow looks shittier with some fancy antennas on top of it? Give me a fucking break.

Can anyone paste the article here? It's being blocked for some reason.

5G is going to do wonders for IoT. Edge computing is only growing, so its a necessity.

 

[SvenBent]

That said, I have no fucking clue what they are on about in terms of aesthetics. You mean that telephone pole that always looked like shit, somehow looks shittier with some fancy antennas on top of it? Give me a fucking break.

This made me giigle.
One of the first things i noticed moving to the states was
1: lack of bicycles
2: phone poles

We don have phone poles anymore in my birth country ( or they are really rare) as they are all burried down... well the cables not the poles.
But this kinda reminded me of the first time i was in the states

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

5G is going to do wonders for IoT. Edge computing is only growing, so its a necessity.

I'll believe it when I see it. Just because your device is IoT doesn't mean it is immune to the immutable laws of physics as regards high frequency EM waves.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

This made me giigle.
One of the first things i noticed moving to the states was
1: lack of bicycles
2: phone poles

We don have phone poles anymore in my birth country ( or they are really rare) as they are all burried down... well the cables not the poles.
But this kinda reminded me of the first time i was in the states

Yeah, when I moved back to the U.S. after growing up in Sweden I was shocked by all the ugly poles and the wires hanging from them. I never saw these in Sweden. Everything was under ground.

It really ruins ones views.

 

[4saken]

I'll believe it when I see it. Just because your device is IoT doesn't mean it is immune to the immutable laws of physics as regards high frequency EM waves.

Yeah not in regards to that point for sure, merely how many devices will be continually increase on these networks.

 

[NKD]

I don't really understand the actual point of 5G, it seems to be hopelessly flawed by the use of super high frequencies and their lack of distance travelled and nearly complete requirement to have line of site and good weather. Maybe I'm wrong but that's what I've read about it so far, and it really seems like the technology is going to cost these companies a shitload of money to install in cities, and anywhere that isn't urban is going to have sporadic coverage or no coverage at all in terms of 5g. They have to have 5g antennas facing in multiple directions on nearly have street pole... High speeds are pointless if you only get them in certain super specific conditions.

That said, I have no fucking clue what they are on about in terms of aesthetics. You mean that telephone pole that always looked like shit, somehow looks shittier with some fancy antennas on top of it? Give me a fucking break.

Can anyone paste the article here? It's being blocked for some reason.

As far as I know there are different types of 5g. What you are referring to is millimeter waves. There will be different version of 5g that won't be as fast but much faster than LTE that works on a lower frequency just like LTE. This is how the phones will work. So we are talking two different bands.

 

[NKD]

I'll believe it when I see it. Just because your device is IoT doesn't mean it is immune to the immutable laws of physics as regards high frequency EM waves.

There is a clear misunderstanding in 5g. 5g millimeter waves is not the same 5g that will be used by your cell phones and other devices. So for cell devices you will have it running on lower mhz band just like LTE signal. But it will be much faster and lower latency. But it will be slower than what they are achieving with millimeter waves.

In other words. NOT ALL 5G is the same. What you are referring to is millimeter waves that have short length and require line of sight and shit.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

There is a clear misunderstanding in 5g. 5g millimeter waves is not the same 5g that will be used by your cell phones and other devices. So for cell devices you will have it running on lower mhz band just like LTE signal. But it will be much faster and lower latency. But it will be slower than what they are achieving with millimeter waves.

In other words. NOT ALL 5G is the same. What you are referring to is millimeter waves that have short length and require line of sight and shit.

I am very filliar with this, but the lower frequency band (pretty much the same frequencies as current cellular bands) have a much more modest bandwidth increase.

In tests thus far it has been limited to only 15%-50% over LTE Advanced, and usually towards the lower end of that range.

At best 5g Will be a marginal speed increase, not the revolution the industry is claiming.

All of the hype is based on the upper hand which is in the millimeter wave range, and will never be practically useful outside of a very few corner cases.

 

[NKD]

I am very filliar with this, but the lower frequency band (pretty much the same frequencies as current cellular bands) had a much more modest bandwidth increase.

In tests thus far it has been limited to only 15%-50% over LTE Advanced, and usually towards the lower end of that range.

At best 5g Will be a marginal speed increase, not the revolution the industry is claiming.

All of the hype is based on the upper hand which is in the millimeter wave range, and will never be practically useful outside of a very few corner cases.

Companies are not going to spend billions on tech if its worthless. I assure you of that. There are endless applications for 5g, its not just all about millimeter waves and weather limitations.

 

[Brian_B]

5G is going to do wonders for IoT. Edge computing is only growing, so its a necessity.

Why? When it has the same range and throughput as WiFi for near locations, and the same range and throughput as LTE for far locations, what's the big benefit that makes 5G a silver bullet for IoT? It doesn't really bring anything new to the table.

 

[SvenBent]

I'll believe it when I see it. Just because your device is IoT doesn't mean it is immune to the immutable laws of physics as regards high frequency EM waves.

What if the wave does not identify as high frequency?
This might offend some frequencies.

#physicslawsareoffensive

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Companies are not going to spend billions on tech if its worthless. I assure you of that. There are endless applications for 5g, its not just all about millimeter waves and weather limitations.

Do you remember the term "irrational exuberance" from ~2007?

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Why? When it has the same range and throughput as WiFi for near locations, and the same range and throughput as LTE for far locations, what's the big benefit that makes 5G a silver bullet for IoT? It doesn't really bring anything new to the table.

If I had to guess companies want to leave us consumers with less and less control. That has been the trend.

No more IPV4 behind a NAT:ed and firewalled network.

You no longer have a network. Instead, every device you own is constantly on 5G via IPV6, and charging you for the data, of course.

That's the real revolution behind 5g. The end of personal control of our devices, our computers and our networks.

And of course, this shit sandwich will be marketed to us as if it is the greatest thing since sliced bread, when in reality wireless companies are taking in bandwidth fees for what used to be intra-network traffic, without providing any benefit

Enterprises have already been falling over themselves to cede this control to the cloud. The consumer space is next.

 

[Brian_B]

Companies are not going to spend billions on tech if its worthless. I assure you of that.

Companies can get wrapped up in hype just the same as people.

Here's just one example that cost $165B

 

[NKD]

Companies can get wrapped up in hype just the same as people.

Here's just one example that cost $165B

I know of people in labs who work on this. So trust me. They aren't just wasting time. IOT and everything is being tested in real time. So its isn't just magical things. we will both be right here. Its not just one company, its an entire eco system, multiple companies. All cell phone providers, so its hard to imagine they all haven't tested use case scenario and are all dreaming.

we can all agree to disagree. Time will prove itself I guess whether they are wrong or right.

 

[Brian_B]

So trust me.

Famous last words.

I just can't buy into the hype.

 

[Lakados]

I remember reading somewhere that one of the big benefits of 5g was the massive changes to the underlying network protocols that govern it. Something about doing away with the Ack Nak process and greatly decreasing overhead. Especially in busy or contested areas.

 

[Absalom]

I remember reading somewhere that one of the big benefits of 5g was the massive changes to the underlying network protocols that govern it. Something about doing away with the Ack Nak process and greatly decreasing overhead. Especially in busy or contested areas.

That seems more like a (software) optimization done at the protocol level. Less handshaking, less overhead. If that's the case, then that could be implemented with existing hardware.

 

[4saken]

Why? When it has the same range and throughput as WiFi for near locations, and the same range and throughput as LTE for far locations, what's the big benefit that makes 5G a silver bullet for IoT? It doesn't really bring anything new to the table.

bandwidth/congestion/etc. The more we all have edge devices on almost everything we interact with day to day, the more this matters. For better or for worse. Data is king now, and 5G only increases the capabilities when it comes to this.

 

[NKD]

Famous last words.

I just can't buy into the hype.

Hey it is what it is lol. We shall see.

 

[Lakados]

That seems more like a (software) optimization done at the protocol level. Less handshaking, less overhead. If that's the case, then that could be implemented with existing hardware.

Can be if the existing hardware has the CPU to handle increased processing. But the new antenna’s seem really cool, far smaller, use less energy closer to the source so again less energy could mean better battery life for devices. There are lots of neat advantages to 5G that 4G and it’s hardware could never touch.

 

[sharknice]

Yeah, when I lived back to the U.S. after growing up in Sweden I was shocked by all the ugly poles and the wires hanging from them. I never saw these in Sweden. Everything was under ground.

It really ruins ones views.

It varies throughout the US. Everything is burried where I live.

 

[Dead Parrot]

Yeah, when I moved back to the U.S. after growing up in Sweden I was shocked by all the ugly poles and the wires hanging from them. I never saw these in Sweden. Everything was under ground.

It really ruins ones views.

In many areas, it depends on when the neighborhood was built out. My old place was built in 1942 and everything electrical was above ground. Water, sewer and gas were underground. Many neighborhoods built in the 70s and after had things underground. Moving things underground is often discussed in OK but the expense would be high as most backyards are fenced, have out buildings, trees and such on the easements. Plus getting all of the utility owners to play well together would be difficult. Imagine having to run three sets of wires/fibers while avoiding existing sewer, gas and water lines, many of which need their own repairs.

Oddly, in the older neighborhoods, 5G rollout may be easier. Hard to imagine that a few more boxes with wires coming out the bottom will be that much of an vision blight. And the squirrels will like the new chewing opportunities. The neighborhoods where everything is underground may well have a good argument against a pole, box and wire display every hundred yards or so.

 

[sirmonkey1985]

In many areas, it depends on when the neighborhood was built out. My old place was built in 1942 and everything electrical was above ground. Water, sewer and gas were underground. Many neighborhoods built in the 70s and after had things underground. Moving things underground is often discussed in OK but the expense would be high as most backyards are fenced, have out buildings, trees and such on the easements. Plus getting all of the utility owners to play well together would be difficult. Imagine having to run three sets of wires/fibers while avoiding existing sewer, gas and water lines, many of which need their own repairs.

Oddly, in the older neighborhoods, 5G rollout may be easier. Hard to imagine that a few more boxes with wires coming out the bottom will be that much of an vision blight. And the squirrels will like the new chewing opportunities. The neighborhoods where everything is underground may well have a good argument against a pole, box and wire display every hundred yards or so.

yup that's the problem we have here.. AT&T has been trying to put in fiber but every street they get to there's more and more undocumented shit found under the roads.. in 2 years of trying to install it they've gotten as far as a 1 mile radius from Gonzaga university which is where they started from. i have a feeling they'll probably give up soon. it'll be interesting to see how long it'll take before 5G is here though given this is primarily a verizon only service area.. AT&T, sprint, and t-mobile are completely useless out here if you're not within 10-15 miles of the freeway running through the southern part of the city.

 

[Smoked Brisket]

With a country the the size of the entire European continent, divided into 50 states, each state divided into hundreds of counties, each county often having its own electric/utility provider that is a privately owned capitalist venture, it's pretty hard to have a set standard where at some point all cables are buried. When projects like that are brought up, they are generally voted down by city councils because the utility companies want assistance in the form of taxes.

 

[snowcrash]

I know of a colleague that live near me and is affected by these cell towers. He would get massive headaches sometimes if he is in close proximity working on a job. At home, he wired his whole house and has wifi turned off. Buys special low end smart phones from Europe to alleviate problems.

So yeah, I'm all for the NIMBY sentiment. Especially when I drive pass a few towers (one by the freeway entrance close to where I live) on my way to work as pointed out by him that I'm totally oblivious about. The less exposure to it, the better.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I know of a colleague that live near me and is affected by these cell towers. He would get massive headaches sometimes if he is in close proximity working on a job. At home, he wired his whole house and has wifi turned off. Buys special low end smart phones from Europe to alleviate problems.

So yeah, I'm all for the NIMBY sentiment. Especially when I drive pass a few towers (one by the freeway entrance close to where I live) on my way to work as pointed out by him that I'm totally oblivious about. The less exposure to it, the better.

Yeah. The symptoms people who claim to suffer from EHS (electromagnetic hypersensitivity) are real. Studies have confirmed this. The problem is with the "E" part. Several high end double blinded studies have confirmed that there is no relationship to EM radiation. These people are definitely suffering from something, but there is no way in hell EM radiation has anything what so ever to do with it.

 

[defaultluser]

Companies can get wrapped up in hype just the same as people.

Here's just one example that cost $165B

This isn't like Sprint going with Wimax instead of LTE, it's the worldwide standard.

That, and you should stop getting distracted and needlessly butt-hurt over mmwave 5G, and regular 5g. They are two different attempts to increase bandwidth, that are designed to work together inside cities, and separate outside of.

See here for the sales pitch on IOT and 5g:
https://www.ecnmag.com/blog/2019/01/what-5g-means-future-internet-things

The only difference with 5g from one country to the next is frequencies. Every single provider is using it.

 

[snowcrash]

Yeah. The symptoms people who claim to suffer from EHS (electromagnetic hypersensitivity) are real. Studies have confirmed this. The problem is with the "E" part. Several high end double blinded studies have confirmed that there is no relationship to EM radiation. These people are definitely suffering from something, but there is no way in hell EM radiation has anything what so ever to do with it.

I wouldn't be so dismissive of it as I'm seeing it with my eyes and I'm very thankful that it only affects a very small segment of population. It is the reason why it's so easy to say it is something else. Or as another colleague likes to jokingly say in a good natured way, "probably just in his head". Since I've seen it with my own eyes, I believe it. I wouldn't have otherwise as I've never even heard of such a thing before encountering him.

 

[honegod]

How soon do we start hearing about antifa tearing down 5g towers and burning installation equipment ?

 

[snowcrash]

How soon do we start hearing about antifa tearing down 5g towers and burning installation equipment ?

Yep. Your sentiment is pretty common including me these days. "As long as it doesn't affect me, it's not a problem." Or "If it costs money, it's not a problem."

One of my favorite hypocrisies is that we have a lawsuit happy culture and constantly complain that something needs to be done about it. Well, guess what? When we're wronged, first thing we look for is our lawyer's phone number.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I wouldn't be so dismissive of it as I'm seeing it with my eyes and I'm very thankful that it only affects a very small segment of population. It is the reason why it's so easy to say it is something else. Or as another colleague likes to jokingly say in a good natured way, "probably just in his head". Since I've seen it with my own eyes, I believe it. I wouldn't have otherwise as I've never even heard of such a thing before encountering him.

Never believe anecdotal personal experience over large powered statistical studies.

If there is ever a conflict between the two, the personal anecdotal experience is always wrong.



Everything about our human existence is based on bias. Our brain makes us believe what we want to believe, or what our "in group" (as sociologists call it) believes, and will even makes us see and experience things in ways that confirm our biases, even when they not accurate.

We as humans are NOT rational beings. You are not an exception. Never trust your own experiences. This is why we do double blinded studies, because we know this about the human condition, and are looking to avoid the influence of bias.

 

[honegod]

What I am getting is a lot of rhetoric about the evils of a technology that the commies want real bad for US to not have.

By creating INSOLUBLE problems with the technology that make it IMPOSSIBLE to implement HERE .
Should work great on folks who KNOW the're incapable of understating any facet of the actual science and so MUST respect the statements of the folks who are naturally superior to them.

It is impossible to design a telephone pole that won't be offensively Ugly.

 

[SvenBent]

I wouldn't be so dismissive of it as I'm seeing it with my eyes and I'm very thankful that it only affects a very small segment of population. It is the reason why it's so easy to say it is something else. Or as another colleague likes to jokingly say in a good natured way, "probably just in his head". Since I've seen it with my own eyes, I believe it. I wouldn't have otherwise as I've never even heard of such a thing before encountering him.

on the other hand only fools are accepting when your "testing" has no counter measure to Placebo.



If scientists invented the legal system, eye witness testimony would be inadmissible evidence.

— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) May 6, 2011

 

[GoodBoy]

Yeah. The symptoms people who claim to suffer from EHS (electromagnetic hypersensitivity) are real. Studies have confirmed this. The problem is with the "E" part. Several high end double blinded studies have confirmed that there is no relationship to EM radiation. These people are definitely suffering from something, but there is no way in hell EM radiation has anything what so ever to do with it.

I wouldn't outright dismiss it.

Different frequencies cause different effects... One study found that cellphones and wifi users reported headaches, while another found that lower frequencies applied to different part of the body had positive effects. Length of exposure likely plays a part, as would signal strength.

EM radiation has been shown to have cellular level effects, that alone says there is more to this. Stick a cockroach in a microwave, and set it for 10 seconds. Tell me that electromagnetic radiations' effects are "no way in hell" having any effect...

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I wouldn't outright dismiss it.

Different frequencies cause different effects... One study found that cellphones and wifi users reported headaches, while another found that lower frequencies applied to different part of the body had positive effects. Length of exposure likely plays a part, as would signal strength.

EM radiation has been shown to have cellular level effects, that alone says there is more to this. Stick a cockroach in a microwave, and set it for 10 seconds. Tell me that electromagnetic radiations' effects are "no way in hell" having any effect...

1.) Phones are not operating at 1100 watts like microwaves do.

2.) The microwave wavelengths are specifically chosen because they maximize interaction with water molecules, thus delivering energy.

3.) Low frequency consumer devices (Radio, Broadcast TV, Cellphone and wifi ranges up through 2.4ghz) are specifically chosen for their abilities to pass through things that are not aerials to as large of an extent possible.

At this point frequencies in the 2.4ghz band have been studied to absolute death, and at the power levels in common use are completely harmless. Any other suggestion is just complete tin-foil-hat conspiracy nonsense not even worth discussion.

Now, the 5Ghz wifi band as well as the high frequency millimeter wave band suggested for 5G have more of a potential of interacting with human tissue. We know this because solid objects do block 5ghz a little and millimeter wave almost completely. That energy has to go somewhere.

But then we need to gain some perspective here. Cellphones tend to broadcast at 300 milliwatt. At that power even in a worst case if all of it is absorbed by the body, you couldn't even quantify the effects. They are negligible.


We live in a time for the past 80 years where EM radiation is all around us at all times, and despite this our life expectancies keep going up (except for a small recent dip, largely caused by the opioid epidemic).

I'm all for being safe, and I think real FDA level safety testing should be required before bringing any new technology or material to market, but believing that cellphones and wifi are harming is is quite frankly just nuts, dreamt up by people who have no understanding of science what so ever.