I have yet to hear anyone who's not a telecom CEO or a politician say they actually want 5G
I want 5g.
Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
51–60 of 224 posts
Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Excepting in this case where the military operates a critical, life-safety infrastructure used by civilians. I'm frankly more concerned with the FCC acting as a taxpayer-funded telecoms industry cheerleader. Dear FCC: You're regulators. You're supposed to be regulating. This is what you get for being public servants.
Meh, the military engages in far more life terminating than life saving.
Deterrence is hard to measure, but US military superiority correlates with a period of relatively low global conflict.
Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
#53I have yet to hear anyone who's not a telecom CEO or a politician say they actually want 5G
I mean, I'm sure a lot of people want it if it improves their mobile experience. It isn't really something that the average person is going to celebrate on Facebook.
Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
#54I don't think there's enough detail here to decide whether or not to be mad. The L band is huge, 1000MHz-2000MHz. GPS uses a few tiny slices of this band. Cell phones, amateur radio, weather radar (though not precipitation-detection radar), ADS-B, and a ton of other non-military things are in that band. Adding 5G may or may not have any negative effect on GPS. I doubt they are proposing to run their 5G network on top…
>everyone knows that would break GPS (which already operate well below the noise floor). Can you explain the noise floor bit?
There exists a fundamental level of electrical noise at all frequencies typically controlled by the background temperature that sets the minimum level of signal you can resolve before it gets washed out in noise. GPS uses multiple coherent (noise being random instead of coherent does not combine at the same rate) copies of the signal that can be recombined to increase their effective signal, so even though they are transmitted below the universal noise floor, they are above it once recombined.
*edited for spelling
Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meh, the military engages in far more life terminating than life saving.
Deterrence is hard to measure, but US military superiority correlates with a period of relatively low global conflict.
Maybe so, but the evidence is weak at best. Some wars (like Iraq, Korea, Vietnam) were a sham. I'd feel more comfortable knowing nobody had nuclear weapons.
Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
#56I 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?
If there is a business application with a powerful enough lobbyist and/or large enough political contribution chest, then of course they should be given approval.
Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>Is the DoD not subject to FCC regulation? That is complex, but most likely no. Like the FAA they largely respect the civilian agencies but ultimately they exist outside of that civilian regulation >>Are there multiple bands that different types of GPS signals use (civilian vs military)? Yes the military GPS is different from the Civilian GPS, the US DOD has the ability in a time of war to cut off Civilian access to…
> the military GPS is different from the Civilian GPS I remember reading at some point that the civilian GPS was randomly offset so as not to give extremely accurate coordinates like the military GPS does. I thought that was interesting, if true.
The US used to intentionally degrade GPS signals available to civilian receivers as compared with those available to military ones, but it stopped doing that in the 1990s.
The biggest difference now between military and civilian GPS is that military receivers use two frequencies, whereas most civilian ones only use one (since using two costs more).
Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a 5G issue, it's a spectrum allocation issue.
Fundamentally yes, but look at how both sides are trying to sell the issue. If Ligado and the FCC are both pushing this spectrum allocation issue as a question of helping 5G or not (and therefore hitching onto the we need 5G now or else China will beat us wagon), then I'm completely sympathetic to opposing coverage piling on the counter 5G bandwagon.
The counter 5G bandwagon seems to be largely comprised of conspiracy theories, dubious health claims, and unqualified assertions that people don't want more bandwidth. Why would you poison a legitimately important topic like spectrum allocation with associations like that?
Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
#59I have yet to hear anyone who's not a telecom CEO or a politician say they actually want 5G
I mean, I'm sure a lot of people want it if it improves their mobile experience. It isn't really something that the average person is going to celebrate on Facebook.
Except:
- It's shorter-range, so coverage will be spotty for a long time
- It doesn't go through buildings, so even the urban centers most likely to get the first towers will have spotty coverage
- It will require buying a new device, which OEMs love but the average person won't
- That device will take a hit in battery life
And all of this for ludicrously-fast new speeds on mobile devices that we'll use for... what exactly? We can already stream HD video over 4G. What experience is 5G, assuming you actually have access to it, going to improve?
I'm sure we can contrive some use-cases like streaming VR video or whatever (even though all current phone-based VR platforms have been sunsetted), but I'm extremely skeptical that it will do anything to make the average user's mobile experience better in any meaningful way.
Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe you could say the nazis took over the military and be more accurate. Most oppression came from the SA which was a military like organization that the nazis had built up. This wasn’t a military coup like in other countries.
You could think about it that way, but you should also know that Himmler created the SS which swore allegiance to Hitler. The SS also existed before Hitler became the chancellor of Germany. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen-SS#Origins_(1929%E2%80%...
> you should also know that Himmler created the SS
I don't understand what point you are trying to make. The SS was an organization within the nazi party, not Germany's armed forces. Your example refutes your previous assertion that "having a military take over like Nazi Germany" because your quote clearly points out that nothing of the sort happened ever.