5G Cell Service Is Coming. Who Decides Where It Goes? (03celltower) (03celltower) (03celltower)

I wonder how many people are reading this on their smart devices. The devices are only wireless for a few hundred feet before they hit a wireless facility with copper of fiber wiring - you know that, right? These facilities must go somewhere so the outdated TDM facilities can be replaced. Many commercial buildings, churches, MDUs, are realizing new revenue streams by allowing placement of these traditional and newer small cell facilities. Objecting to this is literally like objecting to cheeseburgers while noshing on your Wendy's Baconator.

Have you tried looking for a mailbox lately? The last thing we need is 100 disguised cell phone boxes for every real mailbox!

now that net neutrality is shelved, it's too much to ask for fairness in deploying 5G.

The National Toxicology Program has recently produced evidence of harm from cellular radiation - increased incidences of brain and heart tumours in male rats. This evidence joins previous scientific proof that pulsed radiowaves at intensities produced by cellular devices produce cellular and genetic damage that is proportional to exposure. Given this evidence, what we need is a worldwide indefinite moratorium on the 5G rollout. Given that cancer takes a long time to develop, we don't even know the health effects of the constant bombardment with microwaves from 3G and 4G network and the ubiquitous wifi yet. The last thing we need is to make matters worse, potentially much worse, by adding new and higher frequencies into the mix. We know even less about their biological effects.

Aesthetics?, you still have above ground electric, cable, and phone lines which are far more uglier than these 5G poles.

Not who, what. Money decides.

AT&T complaining about charges ‘not based on actual cost’? Please.

There are personal testimonies and scientific studies linking microwave exposure to all sort of health problems and difficulty in concentrating. Where is that discussion in this article?? Can we have full coverage please?

Knowing of at least one person who has been profoundly affected by microwaves from a 5G powering center installed near her home and is unable to function, concentrate or feel well, it seems clear that there will be millions of sensitive people who will become dysfunctional with this equipment installed every few yards. The cost of the poles will pale compared to the cost of medical care and lawsuits by those in the way of this venture, and weren't asked whether they wanted it or not.

Aesthetics are not the biggest concern we should have with 5G technology. Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) has health effects that we should be concerned about. Our bodies (especially our nervous systems) are affected by electricity, radio waves and magnetism. We are just beginning to learn what these effects are, and they are not healthy. Meanwhile, we have a multi-billion dollar industry wanting to put this technology in front of all of our homes, who have a financial interest in NOT knowing the health effects. I am very worried about the proliferation of this new technology, as we all should be.

Addressing a few folks' comments as well as an area not made clear by the original article: 1. "5G" is more than one thing. It's safe to think of it as "faster" and probably even "better" but the radio spectrum that will support it hasn't been decided yet. See: https://www.gsma.com/spectrum/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/GSMA-5G-Spectru... The low-frequency spectrum will behave just like current cellular radio, reaching quite a distance from cell towers and even penetrating into buildings. It's the highest-frequency parts of the spectrum that will have little range (and, by the way, little reach into buildings). 2. Yes, "5G" cellular will use *ELECTROMAGNETIC* radiation (just as all modern over-the-air services from Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, AM and FM broadcast radio, to current cell phones do) but no, there's still no evidence to support the claim that this sort of radiation is harmful at the power levels we're discussing. 3. Yes, the equipment could be housed within hollow poles; good idea! Write to the FCC and other regulatory bodies and demand this. 4. And finally, to "catlover" in Steamboat Springs: You don't think we urban folks are already subsidizing the almost-entirely-Republican rural areas enough? We already pay for your highways, your unused Amtrak service, your airports, your unused farmland, and so on. Your elected Republican officials claim to *HATE IT* when the government subsidizes services; maybe you should be complaining to them?

Oh, this one of those instances in which the States do NOT have a choice to decide? Thank you for the Republican elites, that can protect us from these retrograde States!

There are still some people lamenting the loss of the manual typewriter and the locomotive. Despite our country's regression to civil war era politics and attitudes, we need to anticipate the new technology, and work with it, instead of against it. It's coming anyway. Saying no doesn't stop it. I live 40 miles from NYC and do not get a reliable cell phone signal for much of my commute up the Hudson River. If there's a delay on either end, or any issue, I need decent coverage. I'm expected to work from home, I need the internet to do my banking, my bill payments, and my correspondence and it's fine. I defy anyone to find a working payphone in Grand Central, let alone Peekskill NY...oh and as much as I'm not a fan of online everything, there's no denying that it's a lot easier to pay a bill online than to mail it in and wait for the check to post, etc. How about a nice merger between some local artisans and craftspeople and the tech people to arrive at an acceptable blend of form and function.

I live in a semi rural CA county. over the last month, there has been at least 2 weeks with cell disruptions. Who cares if its 3G, 4G or 5G when the phone company can't maintain they systems?

In our small ruralish town, just 1 hour from NYC, there was just an ongoing battle between a large cellular company and the entire town over putting in a new cell tower. It would be one with the large fake tree design towers, yet still uniquely noticably amongst the swath of trees here. It would be on a sect of private property I believe but still noticeable from a distance. For an entire year there was a battle between town approval board and company. On one hand, we have huge areas of town where service is 1 bar to none. Most people in town agree we need better reception, people complain to the provider. Yet, the same people argue that the "tower tree" is an eye sore, could have an unknown chance of cancer (citing no evidence), and are just arbitrarily conservative about any change in town. We don't allow franchises or large businesses either. After a year of dragging its small-town-feet, the cell phone company is now suing the town over unreasonable and arbitrary denial of their tower application. So, how will America react to these new 5G antenna needs? Should technology be limited by arbitrary and conservative town governments that will benefit most of its residence in some way? And why do communities then turn them into cash-cows, imposing arbitrary application fees, usage fees, etc?

We're missing the bigger argument for the little one. Communities can debate the pros and cons of 5G aesthetics on their own time. The bigger problem with local preemption is you're preempting municipalities from ever developing a publicly owned cellular network. Once telephone companies set up an infrastructure, there will never again be an economically viable means for the public community to control the interest. If this is truly the future of internet, cellular companies want to prematurely shut the door on a public option. Hence the rush. Cellular companies want to get their first.

I don't yet know how to assess the complex tradeoffs here. It might ultimately make sense to accelerate 5G deployment at the expense of local objections. That said, it is always interesting to observe Republicans and conservatives running roughshod over local control and state's rights whenever it suits them (and then describing it as an utterly sacred principle when there are bigots or corporations in need of defending).

"...has strongly encouraged weakening regulations to accelerate the deployment..." Or could that be weakly discouraged strengthening regulations to decelerate the deployment? Confusing phraseology aside, all the pushback is silly. We need the connectivity, and the new equipment will fade into unconsciousness like other eyesores.

5G and it's components an eyesore? BOO HOO! For those of us in rural areas the idea of any reliable cell/internet would be most welcome! Why cell and internet services are not regulated utilities yet is beyond me.

No one is talking about or studying the possible health effects of having stronger, new frequency transmitting boxes right near houses. There is considerable evidence that the cumulative EMF exposure from all sources should be a cause for concern.

No technical reason that the entire amount of electronics could not be put into a hollow pole to replace existing pole. Would cost more but solve issue

Once again, too many repugnant politicians for the good of the Republic. Hence, their private sector creds are in full display: reduced local control of safety and, of course, neighborhood esthetics (goes without saying), obsessive need to eliminate all and every regulation no matter the constitutional, public good derived therefrom. While the cauldron of faux democracy continues to boil over, those in big-bucks-land will assiduously try to stir up the pot to the detriment of the public.

is there radiation coming out of these devices and will it affect people??????

I live in a town of 8000 that is over 200 years old, with many buildings over 150 years old still in use and a well and vigilantly preserved historical district. It has metal trolley polls over 100 years old —now supporting electrical, phone, and cable service wires, and their attendant junction boxes and oil stained transformers — and most buildings are served by overground wires from wood polls that have been in since, or replaced (judging from old pictures) polls that date back to, the telegraph era. Given all that, I do not understand why some are up in arms about extending the height of the polls another yard or so here.

It looks like 5G will be limited to urban areas for some time. And that rural areas, like where I live, won't get any improvement in service as the telecommunication companies concentrate their efforts on 5G. The FCC won't make any rulings to help the rural consumer since that would require taxing the urban providers to subsidized the less-profitable rural service. And we all know it is all about the profits, not about the common good.

Thanks for this story. Though I follow tech trends and own shares of a company that makes chips for 5G, Xilinx, I did not know that there needed to be so many base stations. Having witnessed several cell tower fights in rural California, I would expect some fierce opposition to the installations, including from people who fear a new flood of man-made electromagnetic radiation. I wonder how 5G will service rural areas; will they just stay at 4G?

I live in a semi-rural area where the houses are more than 500 feet apart. I guess units could be placed to reach three houses. Ground-based service will be available to me when hell freezes over. Elon Musk is talking about satellite based G5. How does that work if the units have to be within 500 feet? Or is it a matter of density?

Maybe we don't want "refrigerator"-sized objects crowding our neighborhoods. Power lines are bad enough. We will find out that these new objects, so necessary for imaginary/hypothetical wireless cars, will cause cancer or brain damage, but it'll be too late.