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

Re:Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, ... by liability on Saturday August 24, 2019 @03:39PM (#20789248)

You are unable to convince me I should look forward to it. Since we're apparently getting rude, I'll say your argument is nothing but naive dogmatic futurist optimism. Numerous potential harms to users (relating to privacy, not EM bullshit) have been raised in this thread and all you're offering up in return is vague nonsense about cyber-chauffeurs.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, ... by greenhatman on Saturday August 24, 2019 @05:38PM (#20789862)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, ... by pdimitar on Saturday August 24, 2019 @08:10PM (#20790518)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cities Are Saying ‘No’ to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics, ... by scotty79 on Sunday August 25, 2019 @06:33AM (#20792237)

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'.

[ Parent | on HN ]