Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 224 posts

Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security

#71

Post by Mo3 »

_bxg1 wrote: post #59
sl1ck731 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Regarding your first point, I'm not sure if that's true, I think they use low frequency spectrum around 900MHz (just like LTE) as well, not just the 2000MHz+ to GHz spectrum in densely populated or visited places.

Also, as far as I'm concerned, the latency gains are much more interesting as the ludicrous speed, and then not even exclusively for phones and new types of apps, but for IoT as well

Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security

#72

Post by Ididntdothis »

brenden2 wrote: post #50
Ididntdothis wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure what point you are trying to prove. All this stuff came from outside the regular military. So in the present you should be more worried about militias taking over than the regular military.

My point is simple: be skeptical and suspicious of humans with lots of power over other people.

I don’t think you are doing yourself a favor by bending history in a shape that supports your (very valid) point.

Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security

#73

Post by rumanator »

brenden2 wrote: post #62
rumanator wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I don't think the distinction matters. The SS was an armed military force, with 900,000 soldiers.

Wrong. The SS was a paramilitary organization within the nazi party. It started as a small group of loyalist bodyguards.

Their name literally meant "hall security".

And when Himmler took over the organization, the SS featured less than 3k members.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzstaffel

You're either a poor troll or extremely uninformed.

Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security

#74

Post by _bxg1 »

apcragg wrote: post #68
_bxg1 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your first 3 points are all based on a complete misconception of what 5G NR is. You are talking about mmWave which is an accessory component of the 5G NR standard. Low and mid-band 5G use ~ the same bands (or n71 which is the old TV band in the case of T-mobile) as LTE. Some Network Providers have been doing mmWave first because it is easier to deploy but their networks will also be mid and low band when they finish…

The term is hard to pin down when it's been diluted by things like AT&T rebranding their 4G towers as 5G towers overnight: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/att-decides-4g-is-no...

Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security

#75

Post by oblio »

_bxg1 wrote: post #59
sl1ck731 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There are 2 kinds of 5G, millimeter wave and non millimeter wave.

The one you are talking about is millimeter wave 5G.

The other one has pretty long range, goes through building, doesn't use up that much more battery and is overall a better technology (higher bandwidth, better congestion control and overall capacity for more connections in a crowded area, lower latency, etc.).

Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security

#76

Post by grawprog »

Junk_Collector wrote: post #58
icegreentea2 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Personally, I dislike how the conspiracy nonsense has kind of covered up the actual criticisms of 5g that existed prior to suddenly everyone thinking it's a great idea and if you don't, you're a conspiracy theorist.

I seem to recall this revolved around, questionable tangible benefits vs cost of deployment, poor penetration of 5g signals through structures, a lack of devices or internet plans to take advantage of 5g, and some other things that just seem to have taken a back seat to all the bullshit.

Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security

#77

Post by apcragg »

Causality1 wrote: post #63

I struggle to see the point of 5G existing at all when I can already burn through the 22 GB data cap on my "unlimited" plan in an hour with 4G.

The new standard supports more concurrent users by using the available spectrum more efficiently. There are new modulation and timing "modes" that enable better coverage at cell edges and in dense urban environments. There is better support for multi-antenna systems which means better coverage and more efficient spectrum usage. End-to-end latency has been dramtically reduced and the next 5G NR iteration (rel 17) will add a super low-latency mode. There is now a mode for IoT that enbales low-power communication. Most of these changes aren't going to give you 1Gbps downlink speeds but they represent huge improvements over even LTE-A.

Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security

#80

Post by nxc18 »

_bxg1 wrote: post #45

I have yet to hear anyone who's not a telecom CEO or a politician say they actually want 5G

I want 5G. There, you heard it. I’m not a telecom CEO and I’m not a politician.

Edit: I want fast, reliable telecommunications everywhere I go. I want ultra fast reliable telecom in crowded cities. I want cellular that is competitive with cable internet. I want bandwidth available for IoT devices.

Post reply on HN