“We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”

Re:“We have no reason to believe 5G is safe” by Spooky23 on Monday October 21, 2019 @01:14PM (#21314718)

The thing that concerns me about millimeter wave tech and 5G is that it seems like a solution looking for a problem. My city just had a wave of poles dropped in a few neighborhoods, and they seem to me to be an expensive boondoggle. IMO, we would be better served by the heavy hand of the FCC allowing fiber providers to run telephone poles and trenches without any accountability (as the wireless carriers can with 5G).

These radio bands have been in military use for a long time. I’m surprised that no health studies have been done or released to the public.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“We have no reason to believe 5G is safe” by tboyd47 on Monday October 21, 2019 @01:48PM (#21315122)

It's not a solution looking for a problem. The problem is that the existing infrastructure does not support network slicing. Without network slicing the telcos are severely limited in their pricing models. "5G" is just them trying to convince consumers that this is for their benefit.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“We have no reason to believe 5G is safe” by acqq on Monday October 21, 2019 @02:26PM (#21315534)

Thanks! Just reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G_network_slicing#Key_concept...

"The "one-size-fits-all" network paradigm employed in the past mobile networks (2G, 3G and 4G) is no longer suited to efficiently address a market model composed by very different applications like machine-type communication, ultra reliable low latency communication and enhanced mobile broadband content delivery.[2][11]"

"to address a market model" in the sentence seems to support your claim.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“We have no reason to believe 5G is safe” by Gnarl on Monday October 21, 2019 @03:07PM (#21316009)

True! Right now telcos loathe being locked in as fixed-price dumb bit-pipes for the content providers, the netflix'es, facebooks & amazon's, who are making all the money.

Thus: 5G.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“We have no reason to believe 5G is safe” by leereeves on Tuesday October 22, 2019 @09:05AM (#21323135)

It's competition and regulation, not technology, that prevents telcos from charging as much as they'd like. How will network slicing change that?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“We have no reason to believe 5G is safe” by mac01021 on Tuesday October 22, 2019 @06:47AM (#21322145)

How will 5g fix this for them?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“We have no reason to believe 5G is safe” by bogomipz on Tuesday October 22, 2019 @01:33AM (#21320631)

>"The problem is that the existing infrastructure does not support network slicing"

What does "network slicing" mean here? I'm not familiar with this term.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“We have no reason to believe 5G is safe” by Spooky23 on Monday October 21, 2019 @03:51PM (#21316495)

I’m sure it solves the problem of making more money for the carriers and letting Verizon, et al, bust the CWA.

It (it being the millimeter wave 5G) doesn’t solve any problem that a customer has.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“We have no reason to believe 5G is safe” by mcguire on Monday October 21, 2019 @05:06PM (#21317353)

"These radio bands have been in military use for a long time. I’m surprised that no health studies have been done or released to the public."

I wouldn't be. To a good first-order approximation, the military doesn't give a hoot about long term health consequences and wouldn't release any such studies, if any were made, unless they indicated a requirement for the military usage to change.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“We have no reason to believe 5G is safe” by SuoDuanDao on Monday October 21, 2019 @03:00PM (#21315924)

>allowing fiber providers to run telephone poles and trenches without any accountability (as the wireless carriers can with 5G)

That would definitely invert the value calculations. I work in the industry and there's no question that the savings from 5G are regulatory in nature. Ironic that it's the less regulated tech that has the more questionable health effects.

[ Parent | on HN ]