Comment by kurthr

Comment by kurthr 11 hours ago

19 replies

I'm all for more innocuous cell antennas. I'm just not convinced in this case. Just looking at the picture it seems neither innocuous nor particularly transparent even thought it's on glass. Maybe they can make the connections less apparent without exposed coax, and maybe they won't need to add (extra) windows on top of windows, and maybe they can make the conductive areas more transparent, but this is only useful as a proof of concept.

Let's see what they can do for a commercial product. Usually, there are tens of antennas on a single tower so they can't all look like this. Also, I'm going to assume that you have to keep anyone from getting within 3 meters just due to radiated emissions, so don't go just looking out that window!

avianlyric 9 hours ago

This is a commercial product, that’s actually been installed and being used. The magic here is a “transparent” antenna. The magic is a carefully tuned, small and innocuous antenna, that when mounted on a window it’s been tuned for, allows 5G to easily propagate through the glass.

Glass facades almost universally use Low-E glass to avoid turning the building into a huge greenhouse. Problem for 5G, is that low-e glass is remarkably good at blocking 5G frequencies[1]. Pair that with 5G smaller propagation distances, and issues of finding viable locations to mount 5G antenna becomes a real problem.

This product neatly solves that problem by allowing carriers to mount these antenna on the inside of a buildings facade, while providing coverage outside the building. Which will substantially reduce the cost and difficulty of installing 5G masts. You can place all your sensitive equipment in normal building voids, without the need for bulky and ugly weather proofing, and you need to break the buildings weather tight seals (which a landlord isn’t gonna let you do without significant assurances you’re going the cover the costs of any water that comes through) to run cables to external antenna.

To make all of this viable, someone has had to do a fair bit of work to figure out how to build an antenna that effectively incorporates the low-e window it’s attached to, into its RF design. The fact the physical antenna is made of glass and partial transparent isn’t actually the interesting part. That’s likely been done because glass is a very rigid material that will make it easy to ensure the conductive parts of the antenna are kept at a specific distance from the window it’s mounted on, to ensure the correct RF coupling occurs.

[1] https://www.ranplanwireless.com/gb/resources/low-e-glass/

Reason077 6 hours ago

> “Usually, there are tens of antennas on a single tower so they can't all look like this. Also, I'm going to assume that you have to keep anyone from getting within 3 meters just due to radiated emissions”

Those towers you see with lots of antennas are massive MIMO installations designed for very high capacity and coverage over a wide area. But not all sites need to look like that. In this case, it’s just a small cell designed to improve coverage within a building and/or on a few local streets. Power levels are also much lower, not all that much different to a WiFi base station. People aren’t going to get cooked if they get close to it.

juancn 11 hours ago

Do you mean inconspicuous?

- innocuous: not harmful

- inconspicuous: not clearly visible or attracting attention

  • Bjartr 11 hours ago

    I think it can be used as "non-objectionable" or "non-irritating" which would still work here

    • furyofantares 10 hours ago

      Sure although the article says inconspicuous and transparent and the comment it saying it's neither of those things.

  • asveikau 9 hours ago

    The harm considered here is being conspicuous. So you could make an argument for either term.

  • stackghost 3 hours ago

    Innocuous also means inoffensive, which is apt here.

smsm42 10 hours ago

I don't think it needs to be fully invisible. There are a lot of places in the building where slightly darkened glass panel would not look too out of place, as opposed to a bulky ugly opaque plastic box. Especially if architects really work on integrating it, it can be made very unobtrusive without needing 100% transparency. And, in a lot of buildings there are glass panels which aren't within the foot traffic areas - high windows, ceilings, technical areas, etc.

4star3star 7 hours ago

> turns a window into a base station that can be attached to a building window inside and turn the outdoors into a service area

You could easily enclose this by some architectural feature on the interior of the building or even use a window that's off the back of a maintenance closet.

jauntywundrkind 11 hours ago

The transparency is hard to judge from this one photo, where there's a flat background to it and a line or two.

This seems not at all unreasonably subtle to me. Even with the array of feeder lines, yeah, maybe it's not for very high end stash places but for most places this seems ay okay.

Given what the alternatives are for urban and commercial spaces, this feels like a big win.

My main concern is power level. How much power can you emit if Joe in accounting is 8 feet away from it, and how does that compare versus normal building mounted or pole mounted antennas? Also, what frequencies is this antenna designed for; it seems like 5g can run on lots of spectrum; is this mmWave gear or lower?

Apologies for soapboxing, but I want to chip in my belief that this world is driven by those who see possibility & potential.

  • wolrah 10 hours ago

    > Also, what frequencies is this antenna designed for; it seems like 5g can run on lots of spectrum; is this mmWave gear or lower?

    The article says it's for the "sub-6" 5G bands, a.k.a. normal cellular frequencies, not mmWave.

    As always, these are non-ionizing frequencies, they pose absolutely zero risk to health or safety unless you're absorbing enough power to be meaningfully heated by it.

    > How much power can you emit if Joe in accounting is 8 feet away from it, and how does that compare versus normal building mounted or pole mounted antennas?

    Assuming an antenna gain of 10 dBi, which seems to be "normal" for panel-style antennas in the 5G low band, just short of 30 watts in to the antenna would be safe according to the guidelines the FCC gives us amateur radio operators for "uncontrolled" environments if the antenna were aimed directly at a person eight feet away.

    Obviously in the real world these antennas will be aimed outward so the energy being absorbed by anyone in the building will be significantly less than that.

    These should not be installed in places someone could directly touch it or the cables feeding it, but there's no reason to believe there's any danger to someone just existing normally in the same room.

  • vel0city 10 hours ago

    > My main concern is power level. How much power can you emit if Joe in accounting is 8 feet away from it

    That was my first takeaway from the photo from outside. The kinds of antennas they put on top of buildings routinely run many hundreds to a thousand watts or more of power directionally out into the city. That's fine when you're putting it on equipment outside the building on a controlled access roof pointing away from the occupants in the building. Everyone actually in the beam pattern is going to be far away from the active elements.

    This design doesn't seem to be incredibly directional especially outwards. You're not going to be able to run much power on that antenna, and now you're going to have it on the inside of metallized glass. A lot of that energy is going to stay in the building. I wouldn't want the desk next to this if it's going to run even 100W. Just asking to get some good RF burns.

    • Reason077 6 hours ago

      > ”A lot of that energy is going to stay in the building.”

      Right. The point of these small cell sites is usually to improve coverage within the building.

      Occupational RF exposure is pretty strictly regulated in most countries. I’m sure there is design/installation guidance to ensure they stay well within legal limits.

      • vel0city 5 hours ago

        > The point of these small cell sites is usually to improve coverage within the building

        That's not what the article is stating. If that was its use, there are plenty of 5G antennas that can look like any of the other warts commonly found on office ceilings like smoke detectors and other wireless ap's and what not.

        > attached to a building window inside and turn the outdoors into a service area

        These aren't specifically for indoor coverage, its specifically for outdoor coverage.

  • generic92034 11 hours ago

    > My main concern is power level. How much power can you emit if Joe in accounting is 8 feet away from it, and how does that compare versus normal building mounted or pole mounted antennas?

    My thoughts exactly. Who would like to sit that close to a 5G Base Station?

  • gamblor956 6 hours ago

    This is a demonstration setup to show that it works.

    It's fairly obvious that there are thousands of different ways to camoflauge this equipment in a real-world customer deployment, just like how routers, etc., are hidden in restaurants and stores.

  • Swizec 11 hours ago

    > Apologies for soapboxing, but I want to chip in my belief that this world is driven by those who see possibility & potential.

    Cynics never lose but optimists win.