Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
1–10 of 224 posts
Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
#2>U.S. Space Force Gen. John Raymond told the Senate Armed Service Committee
>U.S. Space Force Gen.
I know it's unrelated, but it is very strange seeing this title actually written out.
Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
#3>U.S. Space Force Gen. John Raymond told the Senate Armed Service Committee >U.S. Space Force Gen. I know it's unrelated, but it is very strange seeing this title actually written out.
"the Fourteenth Air Force/Air Forces Strategic was redesignated as Space Operations Command (SpOC)."
Because of course the Space Force would have something named Spoc(k).
Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
#4This is being framed as a military issue, but the reality is that this would cause havoc with aviation as well, especially precision GPS approaches.
Reminds me of a similar issue from 2012:
Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
#5I have not read up on it - I am no expert. However, this is the second technology (first being weather radar) that 5G is reported to have significant, negative effects on.
As a layman, I do wish we banned 5G entirely, assuming these assertions are correct. There is a greater public interest than even faster cell connectivity.
The wiki on 5G isn't bad - I now get that it is a tri-band negotiation, and I assume it is the "high" band that causes the issues.[1]
How does Wifi 6 use the same spectrum as 5G mid, but get such higher throughput?
And if the point of 5G is also to give higher speeds and capacity in dense urban environments, with denser antenna coverage, why couldn't they adapt the existing 2-6 GHz range instead of going up toward millimeter?
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G
meta-edit: So, I put forward assertions, admitted humility and lack of expert knowledge, asked questions and linked to a wiki that I found to talk about the subject. If the person/people who downvoted me for the original content sees this, please note that the downvote button is not a disagree button. If you have substantive issue with the post, rebut it.
Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
#6I don't understand this. Is the DoD not subject to FCC regulation? Are there multiple bands that different types of GPS signals use (civilian vs military)?
My understanding of GPS was that it is used in _civilization critical_ applications like satellite synchronization and plane/ship navigation. How could any sane human approve an interference with this traffic?
Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
#7This is being framed as a military issue, but the reality is that this would cause havoc with aviation as well, especially precision GPS approaches. Reminds me of a similar issue from 2012: https://www.gps.gov/news/2012/02/lightsquared/
Appears to be the same company:
https://ligado.com/press/ligado-networks-launches-with-goal-...
Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
#8Do they ever not say that?
News would be "Pentagon official admits that doesn't actually threaten national security of largest military on the planet."
Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
#9I don't understand this. Is the DoD not subject to FCC regulation? Are there multiple bands that different types of GPS signals use (civilian vs military)? My understanding of GPS was that it is used in _civilization critical_ applications like satellite synchronization and plane/ship navigation. How could any sane human approve an interference with this traffic?
[deleted]
Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
#10I don't understand this. Is the DoD not subject to FCC regulation? Are there multiple bands that different types of GPS signals use (civilian vs military)? My understanding of GPS was that it is used in _civilization critical_ applications like satellite synchronization and plane/ship navigation. How could any sane human approve an interference with this traffic?
> How could any sane human approve an interference with this traffic?
I think your assumption that people in charge at the top of the United States are sane isn't a valid assumption.