Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd feel more comfortable, but is that the same as actually being safer?
You could ask someone who was living in Japan in 1945.
Or someone living in Nanking in 1938.
Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
121–130 of 224 posts
Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
#122I 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.
> I want fast, reliable telecommunications everywhere I go.
Don't leave the city then. 5G has very limited range and doesn't work in rural areas where there aren't enough customers to provide needed geographical coverage.
Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
#123I 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…
Perhaps it's not about the nominal operation as a 5G tower; rather, a bunch of powerful software-defined radios that could interfere upon command is a pretty reasonable attack vector.
Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
#124Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
#125Earlier 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?
This is a genuine problem: the current polarization means that you are either in favor of 5G or a conspiracy theorist. This is not a healthy atmosphere for a rational discussion about long-term impact of 5G.
Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
#126I 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.
> I want fast, reliable telecommunications everywhere I go.
Already possible with 4G/3G in many Asian countries. Your provider just sucks.
> I want ultra fast reliable telecom in crowded cities.
See above.
> I want cellular that is competitive with cable internet.
Not gonna happen. FFTX is already at 10Gbp, and it is going higher as time pass.
Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
#127I have yet to hear anyone who's not a telecom CEO or a politician say they actually want 5G
What benefit do you see to the telecom that doesn't stem from customer demand?
Telecoms want to take the place of WiFi. If you follow the non-technical 5G articles, there is a lot of promotion of how 5G _will_ replace WiFi.
Within the last year, we denied Verizon's 5G proposal. They want to run fiber and wireless backhaul to provide indoor access for some buildings. It's also important to watch which door these proposals come through. It's a tell as to what their actual agenda is.
Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
#128Earlier 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…
> What experience is 5G, assuming you actually have access to it, going to improve?
Remotely operated robotics due to the much lower latency. Think near instant reaction times while operating a drone with VR goggles, and all the implication this could have.
Also many other use cases become more feasible:
- Self driving cars with human fallbacks
- Safer car racing
- Actually smart delivery, where a single person can manage a fleet of vehicles
- Search & rescue operations ...
Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I want 5G You listed the theoretical advantages of 5G. Whether or not the practice mirrors theory is debatable. But I can't help but noticed you missed listing any disadvantage. Most people are completely unaware of any because they don't make it in the marketing leaflets. When you say 5G I can just as well read: I want close range, LoS connections, substantially higher power consumption for devices and increased c…
We don’t know about data plans because 5G hasn’t been widely deployed yet. The same could be said for 3G->4G transition, but then we started seeing caps move from 500MB to 10+GB. Line of sight connections are great in crowded cities. Large venues can install cells locally for even better performance, and wide deployment of these cells is an accepted part of the deployment. Power consumption is an issue, but that’s an…
> We don’t know about
We also don't know how fast and reliable 5G will be (beyond the severely limited range) but it was at the top of your list of advantages. Some of the disadvantages of current Gees you mentioned seem to be exacerbated by your mobile carrier and they may very well apply to 5G.
> each one is either so minor as to be a non-issue
For the purpose of making your argument you were willing to just downplay every disadvantage, ignore it, or just glance over it, and pump up every advantage. Many others aren't. The reason 5G is going ahead as such (half baked and expensive, more so than 4G was in its time) is that most people don't know what they want, or what they get. But enough have the money and the promotional material says it's the thing to get. If it weren't for the slowing smartphone market nobody would have considered going ahead with this. But the phone market is catatonic so suddenly here you are convinced that your RPi with sensors can only work over 5G, ignoring that LoRa may be an even better choice for such applications. LoRa doesn't have great marketing though.
WiFi is genuinely better for some of the applications you listed. Voice is still 4G. And the law of diminishing returns strongly suggests that the jump brings less noticeable real world difference than the numbers suggest.
Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
When light squared was shut down for messing with gps frequencies in their satellite network, the military did not say that light^2 was actually broadcasting outside of the expected frequency band. The deal is that the military just doesn’t use filters on most of their broadcast and reception equipment so their operating frequency is actually way wider than they say publicly. This is because filters cost money and re…
> The deal is that the military just doesn’t use filters Do you have a citation for that? I would have thought the issue is not that GPS receivers don't use filters, but rather than no filter has a perfectly sharp cut-off and GPS signals are exceptionally faint. For example, if the GPS signal is 0.1 femtowatts at 1575MHz, even if you've got a filter that can remove 99.99999% of a noise signal at 1600MHz you can still…
Oh man, I bet there's a nice market of GPS jammers out there - especially useful for the home team in any action, since they don't need help with directions. I wonder if that counts as a weapon?