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

Post by ac29 » Fri, May 08, 2020, 4:33 AM UTC

Rebelgecko wrote: post #135

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…

I'm not an RF person, but the way it was explained to me is that GNSS signals are in the neighborhood of 1560mhz-1610mhz. With the advent of GPSIII, even more of the important signals are getting pushed outwards towards the extremes of that range. Ligado/Lightsquared initially wanted permission to basically surround GPS (1526-1559mhz and 1610-1660mHz) After lots of complaints, they amended their request to leave a bu…

Post by coliveira » Fri, May 08, 2020, 4:48 AM UTC

strken wrote: post #182

nxc18 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should the Europeans ban American equipment? We know the NSA intercepts shipments and tampers with network equipment, on top of everything else they do. We also know a foreign agent (with considerable Chinese debt who was elected with the help of Russian intelligence) is now in the White House. I know it’s fashionable to shit on China (China China China), but it’s not like they’re doing something new and unique. How…

If European nations were worried about vulnerability to the US military they'd probably start by removing all those air bases and nuclear weapons and leaving NATO. They aren't worried about the US, because the US isn't expansionist and generally only applies muscular diplomacy to nations that are small and poor. China has used military force to expand much more recently than the US, making it much more of a concern.

Post by josh2600 » Fri, May 08, 2020, 6:08 AM UTC

wl wrote: post #116

josh2600 wrote: post #46

Earlier 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…

That's not accurate. Every GPS receiver in existence uses filtering. The question is, how sharp does that filter have to be? The GPS frequencies were chosen to be away from frequencies used by transmitters that might be near GPS receivers. Lightsquared proposed repurposing satellite downlink frequencies (which they bought at a discount because this restriction limited their use) for the purposes of terrestrial networ…

Post by kalleboo » Fri, May 08, 2020, 7:43 AM UTC

antsar wrote: post #86

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.

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

Post by akiselev » Fri, May 08, 2020, 8:47 AM UTC

takeda wrote: post #194

asdff wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also in LA and I find 4G is not very reliable. Who is your carrier? I use verizon. Speeds are bad and my connection drops all the time. I'm by ktown so maybe it's the density at play compared to other areas.

T-Mobile. Was a Verizon user until 2011 or 12. Actually when I switched T-Mobile felt like an upgrade in LA (especially it worked inside buildings that Verizon didn't), it was not great in rural areas but never had problems in LA.