7 ms·

California Governor Vetoes Statewide 5G Antenna Standards

55 points by ashitlerferad 9y ago

baybal2 9y ago
I am puzzled again by standards of American law making. Why telecoms have rights to mount 4g equipment on public property, but not 5g (which is not even a standard yet?)
- CommentCard 9y ago
  For the same reason that people claim to have wifi allergies probably. More probably and less cynically, 5g is a different wavelength and therefore the transceiver requires FCC assessment and approval.
- dhruvrrp 9y ago
  Senate Bill 649, which passed the California Legislature last month, would have restricted local governments' abilities to block antenna placement and would cap the rates that they could charge telecom companies for installations on public property, such as street lamps or traffic lights. It feels like it’s more about telecom companies trying to restrict the rent local governments can charge that is a bigger deal here.
  - mcny 9y ago
    I am not a fan of telecoms but I can't oppose then on this one. Removing restrictions allows telecoms options which lets rent to go lower, no?
    - timthelion 9y ago
      But this isn't removing restrictions, this is adding a new restriction, a positive type of restriction which FORCES local governments to rent. No one should be FORCED to rent their property.
      - csdreamer7 9y ago
        Government owned property, public property has a duty to serve the public. Capping rates and allowing antennas in certain areas provides competition in the broadband market which serves the public interest.
        mcguire 9y ago
        "Capping rates and allowing antennas in certain areas provides competition in the broadband market..." I don't believe I've seen an argument that market interference, "capping rates", is good for the free market recently.
        waegawegawe 9y ago
        You haven't been in many internet arguments about economics, then. There are a lot of us who think that various targeted types of regulation and government market participation can actually lead to better markets. I'm not sure it's the case this time, but the general sentiment is common.
        int_19h 9y ago
        It depends on how you define "free market", exactly. The definition that is popular nowadays originated with libertarians, and equates it with lack of government regulation, regardless of anything else. But the traditional definition also includes monopolies and other factors that stifle competition, and from that perspective, it's entirely possible for a market to be more free because of government intervention (e.g. monopoly busting).
        csdreamer7 9y ago
        Indeed, setting certain rules can unify a market and reduce transaction costs. Calling a city, negotiating for rights to use public property, etc. Setting caps can also reduce a municipality desire to give a 'monopoly', an absolute monopoly where you can't get comparable service elsewhere, to one provider in exchange for generous royalty rates.
        9y ago
- db48x 9y ago
  You misunderstood the nature of the bill that was vetoed. The bill didn't have much to do with 5G at all. It mandated a uniform state-wide permitting process for any company installing wireless equipment. It also set a maximum price that cities could charge companies who want to use city property (poles and whatnot) to mount their equipment. Every local jurisdiction in the United States has their own rules for getting permits. If you just want to add on to your house that's not a big deal, but if you want to build a lot of things in a lot of places then the extra cost adds up quickly.
- khedoros1 9y ago
  For earlier generations, they put large towers, spread relatively far apart. For 5G, they'll need smaller antennas, spaced closer together, which means more cellular stations, over-all. In previous cases, I think that a lot of "next-gen" cell towers just upgraded the previous generation of tower, but stayed in the same place. Argument for the bill: It streamlines the process for getting permits to put up new cellular antennas, and makes permit requests cheaper by putting a limit to the fees that a local government can charge. The process and costs should be limited to reasonable amounts, and standardized throughout the state. Argument against the bill: Local governments should be able to manage local affairs; things that make sense in one city might not make sense in another, or might need to be done differently. U.S. law is layered. Federal law specifies some things, and leaves everything else to the states. Then state law specifies some things, and leaves the rest to cities and counties, etc.
  - Dylan16807 9y ago
    It's hard for me to think of any way antenna regulation needs to differ on a city-by-city basis. National radio quiet zone? No, that's specified on a federal level...
    - WillPostForFood 9y ago
      Let's say the state says cities must grant rights to telcos to use street lights for cell antennas. But maybe one town has a historic downtown with old gas lamp street lights and adding cell equipment would look bad, or damage them. Or maybe installation in some towns would require cutting back heritage trees. There are reasons for cities to have different regulations. Not that this is specifically applicable to the actual vetoed bill, which I think was a good idea.
CommentCard 9y ago
"Some critics also reportedly expressed concerns about radiation emitted by thousands of small antennas." When is this going to stop? It feels like we're going backwards in terms of people understanding science.
- JoshMnem 9y ago
  More info: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15523102 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15523102
- brk 9y ago
  I agree with you. I think part of the problem is that the public perpetually feels like major corporations do things that prioritize profits over general consumer best interests. This leads to a knee-jerk opposition to anything not fully understood.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - lovich 9y ago
    I agree with what you said, but I want to point out that feel shouldn't be the word used here. Feel is used for something that's unproven, a gut instinct or emotion. In terms of major corporations prioritizing profits over consumer best interests it's not a feeling anymore. The multitude of documented cases of corporations explicitly deciding to prioritize profits over everything has gone on long enough that at this point a company would have to prove exactly what profits they were leaving on the table before anyone should resonably believe they are acting in the interest of consumers. Its going to cause more and more situations like this fear of antennas and radiation, or vaccinnes causing autism, or any other crazy sort of idea because there is no trust anymore and the public has to assume they are going to get fucked if they aren't cautious
- timthelion 9y ago
  What lack of understanding is there though? We already know that doctors are unable to preform reproducible science, so we cannot trust them to prove that cell-phones are safe. Physics tells us that cell-phone radiation enters the body and interacts with cells. Of course, the panic that often accompanies such uncertainty is irrational and unscientific, but the steadfast belief that the radiation can do no harm is equally so. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph250/lu1/ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph250/lu1/
suyash 9y ago
This is what I love about living in California. Gov is way ahead in terms of public safety and environment safety standards. Great job Gov. Brown.
spankalee 9y ago
Sounds like Brown just didn't like this version of the bill: > “There is something of real value in having a process that results in extending this innovative technology rapidly and efficiently," Brown wrote in his veto message. "Nevertheless, I believe the interest which localities have in managing rights of way requires a more balanced solution than the one achieved in this bill.”
sanguy 9y ago
5G has proven to cause a increase in tumor rates in male rats during testing. So I understand some desire to block this technology until better understood. Cancer is increasing at an alarming rate - could be from many many factors but worth understanding more before just allowing wide scale deployment. I'd rather live with 4G versus 5G and cancer...
- WillPostForFood 9y ago
  Cancer isn't increasing at an alarming rate, or even at all. Especially brain cancer, which would be a likely candidate if cell phones were really a problem. You know what has skyrocketed? Cell phone use. That brain cancer rates have not gone up is the best evidence that cell phones aren't causing cancer. https://brain-cancer.canceraustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/statistics/2017/cancer_in_australia_summary_pages_2017-25.png https://brain-cancer.canceraustralia.gov.au/sites/default/fi...
- viraptor 9y ago
  > 5G has proven to cause a increase in tumor rates in male rats during testing. Claims like that would really benefit from a link to the specific study you're talking about.
  - pragmar 9y ago
    I think this is the study on rats sanguy is referring to: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/ https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/ The American Cancer Society called it a "paradigm shift" in our understanding of the effects of non-ionizing radiation, FWIW.
    - torgoguys 9y ago
      The results are rushed partial results, yes with peer review, but probably spurious, as noted by at least one of the reviewers. The reviewers didn't have benefit of well organized data either, muddying their process. In fact, if you look at the various studied rat groups, and take the reported results at face value, you would note that the male rats exposed to the most cell phone radiation had the longest lifespan, greater than the controls (which had curiously low survival rates compared to the norm in lab rats too, btw, further muddying the findings). Not a junky study exactly, but the analysis of the data is problematic.

55 points by ashitlerferad 9y ago

I am puzzled again by standards of American law making. Why telecoms have rights to mount 4g equipment on public property, but not 5g (which is not even a standard yet?)

CommentCard 9y ago
For the same reason that people claim to have wifi allergies probably. More probably and less cynically, 5g is a different wavelength and therefore the transceiver requires FCC assessment and approval.
dhruvrrp 9y ago
Senate Bill 649, which passed the California Legislature last month, would have restricted local governments' abilities to block antenna placement and would cap the rates that they could charge telecom companies for installations on public property, such as street lamps or traffic lights. It feels like it’s more about telecom companies trying to restrict the rent local governments can charge that is a bigger deal here.
- mcny 9y ago
  I am not a fan of telecoms but I can't oppose then on this one. Removing restrictions allows telecoms options which lets rent to go lower, no?
  - timthelion 9y ago
    But this isn't removing restrictions, this is adding a new restriction, a positive type of restriction which FORCES local governments to rent. No one should be FORCED to rent their property.
    - csdreamer7 9y ago
      Government owned property, public property has a duty to serve the public. Capping rates and allowing antennas in certain areas provides competition in the broadband market which serves the public interest.
      - mcguire 9y ago
        "Capping rates and allowing antennas in certain areas provides competition in the broadband market..." I don't believe I've seen an argument that market interference, "capping rates", is good for the free market recently.
        waegawegawe 9y ago
        You haven't been in many internet arguments about economics, then. There are a lot of us who think that various targeted types of regulation and government market participation can actually lead to better markets. I'm not sure it's the case this time, but the general sentiment is common.
        int_19h 9y ago
        It depends on how you define "free market", exactly. The definition that is popular nowadays originated with libertarians, and equates it with lack of government regulation, regardless of anything else. But the traditional definition also includes monopolies and other factors that stifle competition, and from that perspective, it's entirely possible for a market to be more free because of government intervention (e.g. monopoly busting).
        csdreamer7 9y ago
        Indeed, setting certain rules can unify a market and reduce transaction costs. Calling a city, negotiating for rights to use public property, etc. Setting caps can also reduce a municipality desire to give a 'monopoly', an absolute monopoly where you can't get comparable service elsewhere, to one provider in exchange for generous royalty rates.
      - 9y ago
db48x 9y ago
You misunderstood the nature of the bill that was vetoed. The bill didn't have much to do with 5G at all. It mandated a uniform state-wide permitting process for any company installing wireless equipment. It also set a maximum price that cities could charge companies who want to use city property (poles and whatnot) to mount their equipment. Every local jurisdiction in the United States has their own rules for getting permits. If you just want to add on to your house that's not a big deal, but if you want to build a lot of things in a lot of places then the extra cost adds up quickly.
khedoros1 9y ago
For earlier generations, they put large towers, spread relatively far apart. For 5G, they'll need smaller antennas, spaced closer together, which means more cellular stations, over-all. In previous cases, I think that a lot of "next-gen" cell towers just upgraded the previous generation of tower, but stayed in the same place. Argument for the bill: It streamlines the process for getting permits to put up new cellular antennas, and makes permit requests cheaper by putting a limit to the fees that a local government can charge. The process and costs should be limited to reasonable amounts, and standardized throughout the state. Argument against the bill: Local governments should be able to manage local affairs; things that make sense in one city might not make sense in another, or might need to be done differently. U.S. law is layered. Federal law specifies some things, and leaves everything else to the states. Then state law specifies some things, and leaves the rest to cities and counties, etc.
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  It's hard for me to think of any way antenna regulation needs to differ on a city-by-city basis. National radio quiet zone? No, that's specified on a federal level...
  - WillPostForFood 9y ago
    Let's say the state says cities must grant rights to telcos to use street lights for cell antennas. But maybe one town has a historic downtown with old gas lamp street lights and adding cell equipment would look bad, or damage them. Or maybe installation in some towns would require cutting back heritage trees. There are reasons for cities to have different regulations. Not that this is specifically applicable to the actual vetoed bill, which I think was a good idea.

CommentCard 9y ago

"Some critics also reportedly expressed concerns about radiation emitted by thousands of small antennas." When is this going to stop? It feels like we're going backwards in terms of people understanding science.

JoshMnem 9y ago
More info: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15523102 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15523102
brk 9y ago
I agree with you. I think part of the problem is that the public perpetually feels like major corporations do things that prioritize profits over general consumer best interests. This leads to a knee-jerk opposition to anything not fully understood.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- lovich 9y ago
  I agree with what you said, but I want to point out that feel shouldn't be the word used here. Feel is used for something that's unproven, a gut instinct or emotion. In terms of major corporations prioritizing profits over consumer best interests it's not a feeling anymore. The multitude of documented cases of corporations explicitly deciding to prioritize profits over everything has gone on long enough that at this point a company would have to prove exactly what profits they were leaving on the table before anyone should resonably believe they are acting in the interest of consumers. Its going to cause more and more situations like this fear of antennas and radiation, or vaccinnes causing autism, or any other crazy sort of idea because there is no trust anymore and the public has to assume they are going to get fucked if they aren't cautious
timthelion 9y ago
What lack of understanding is there though? We already know that doctors are unable to preform reproducible science, so we cannot trust them to prove that cell-phones are safe. Physics tells us that cell-phone radiation enters the body and interacts with cells. Of course, the panic that often accompanies such uncertainty is irrational and unscientific, but the steadfast belief that the radiation can do no harm is equally so. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph250/lu1/ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph250/lu1/

suyash 9y ago

This is what I love about living in California. Gov is way ahead in terms of public safety and environment safety standards. Great job Gov. Brown.

spankalee 9y ago

Sounds like Brown just didn't like this version of the bill: > “There is something of real value in having a process that results in extending this innovative technology rapidly and efficiently," Brown wrote in his veto message. "Nevertheless, I believe the interest which localities have in managing rights of way requires a more balanced solution than the one achieved in this bill.”

sanguy 9y ago

5G has proven to cause a increase in tumor rates in male rats during testing. So I understand some desire to block this technology until better understood. Cancer is increasing at an alarming rate - could be from many many factors but worth understanding more before just allowing wide scale deployment. I'd rather live with 4G versus 5G and cancer...

WillPostForFood 9y ago
Cancer isn't increasing at an alarming rate, or even at all. Especially brain cancer, which would be a likely candidate if cell phones were really a problem. You know what has skyrocketed? Cell phone use. That brain cancer rates have not gone up is the best evidence that cell phones aren't causing cancer. https://brain-cancer.canceraustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/statistics/2017/cancer_in_australia_summary_pages_2017-25.png https://brain-cancer.canceraustralia.gov.au/sites/default/fi...
viraptor 9y ago
> 5G has proven to cause a increase in tumor rates in male rats during testing. Claims like that would really benefit from a link to the specific study you're talking about.
- pragmar 9y ago
  I think this is the study on rats sanguy is referring to: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/ https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/ The American Cancer Society called it a "paradigm shift" in our understanding of the effects of non-ionizing radiation, FWIW.
  - torgoguys 9y ago
    The results are rushed partial results, yes with peer review, but probably spurious, as noted by at least one of the reviewers. The reviewers didn't have benefit of well organized data either, muddying their process. In fact, if you look at the various studied rat groups, and take the reported results at face value, you would note that the male rats exposed to the most cell phone radiation had the longest lifespan, greater than the controls (which had curiously low survival rates compared to the norm in lab rats too, btw, further muddying the findings). Not a junky study exactly, but the analysis of the data is problematic.