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

101–110 of 224 posts

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

#101

Post by takeda »

nxc18 wrote: post #92
antsar wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you can exhaust the monthly high-speed data cap in 5 minutes instead of 5 days?

So I can use my mapping application when I’m in the park. So I can look up an earthquake that just happened when I’m in the lobby of a movie theater (that really happened, and the 4G network really is not capable of handling any sort of crowd at least not in my area).

I live in LA and don't have this issues with crowds disabling me from using 4G.

Regarding the earthquake, yes it is common that you can't access SCEC website right after an earthquake, but this is not a problem with 4G. You can have 10 gbps over fiber and the site still won't be accessible, because the site itself is bogged down by the traffic.

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

#103

Post by nxc18 »

close04 wrote: post #97
nxc18 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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 issue that will improve over time and also applies to any technology upgrade in modern devices.

I don’t list the downsides because each one is either so minor as to be a non-issue, is totally hypothetical and didn’t apply to previous generational upgrades, or a downside that applies to literally any new mobile technology and therefore doesn’t need to be said.

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

#104

Post by Spooky23 »

nxc18 wrote: post #80
_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.

It won’t, because the favored status granted to carriers will put cable out of business, and you’ll be stuck with Ma Bell again.

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

#105

Post by nxc18 »

takeda wrote: post #101
nxc18 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I can use my mapping application when I’m in the park. So I can look up an earthquake that just happened when I’m in the lobby of a movie theater (that really happened, and the 4G network really is not capable of handling any sort of crowd at least not in my area).

I live in LA and don't have this issues with crowds disabling me from using 4G. Regarding the earthquake, yes it is common that you can't access SCEC website right after an earthquake, but this is not a problem with 4G. You can have 10 gbps over fiber and the site still won't be accessible, because the site itself is bogged down by the traffic.

In my case the site was google but yes individual sites are always at risk of going down.

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

#106

Post by pmachinery »

brenden2 wrote: post #41
Ididntdothis wrote: post #40

Earlier 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%...

> Himmler created the SS

Not that it matters to your argument but as a point of trivia, Himmler did not create the SS. While SS member #1 was Adolf Hitler, SS member #2 was Emil Maurice, Hitler's Jewish friend and driver since the early days of the party.

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

#107

Post by takeda »

oblio wrote: post #75
_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…

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.).

The 5G is pitched because greater speeds, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the millimeter waves are the reason for higher bandwidth otherwise it is similar to 4G that can peak to 1Gbps.

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

#108

Post by nxc18 »

dylan-m wrote: post #93
nxc18 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

These are reasonable, but what are these IoT devices and why can't they connect to your wifi, or to a zigbee network? Why do they need their own IP addresses?

I’d like to be able to put things like raspberry pi weather sensors, etc outside of the range of WiFi. I know in a lot of places especially on larger properties, there is going to be cellular coverage but it is prohibitively expensive to install WiFi.

I’m honestly tired of all of these ‘but why do you need it?’ arguments. The same was said about electricity, long before anyone envisioned dishwashers, game consoles, blenders, etc. But why aren’t gas lamps good enough?

Heck, the same thing could be said about WiFi. 10 years ago no one would think a WiFi network should need to support 100+ devices, but here we are in 2020.

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

#109

Post by dwater »

_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've heard that top brass at the DoD is fixated on 5G being critical to military superiority in the near future, without really having any practical understanding of its strengths and weaknesses or real world applications. But it's become a hot buzzword and an easy way to drum up money and attention. The fact that China is a major player is also helping funnel funding into many money-torching projects.

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

#110

Post by jrockway »

core-questions wrote: post #42
jrockway wrote: post #38

I 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?

The reply that you already have is pretty good. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_code is a good jumping off point for further research (as is the wikipedia article on GPS).
Post reply on HN