‘Maybe Because Most Don’t Want to Be Fried For Faster Internet?
Doctors, scientists, engineers, and public advocates have asked President Trump for a moratorium on 5G because of biological, environmental, and safety risks (see 1, 2, 3). Multiple 5G lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. (see 1, 2, 3, 4). Worldwide opposition continues to increase probably because people and animals have been getting sick where it has already been turned on (see 1, 2, 3, 4). Many cities and countries have tried to ban it. Slick marketing campaigns – even ones featuring Trump – still may not be enough to make 5G desirable OR economically feasible.
Last summer Activist Post reported about how few in Sacramento subscribed to 5G after it had been installed AND how many wanted it removed. Nothing seems to have changed.
As 5G technology has ramped up over the past few years, ISPs have started talking about replacing or augmenting expensive fiber networks with cheaper gigabit wireless access delivered via small cell networks. Now that Verizon’s 5G fixed wireless service is up and running, analyst firm MoffettNathanson examined the economics and costs of Verizon’s Sacramento rollout, and whether the initiative is economically sustainable. The company’s results make for interesting reading.
According to MoffettNathanson, only six percent of homes in Sacramento had access to Verizon 5G, with fewer than three percent actually subscribed. Of greater concern than the low subscriber numbers, however, is how few customers each small cell can actually support. On average, each small cell can only reach 27 local addresses.
This represents a real problem for companies hoping to rely on fixed wireless to roll out gigabit networks to customers at dramatically lower prices compared with the cost of running fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP).’