Broadcasters Slam FCC C Band Proposal

Radioguy41

SatelliteGuys Pro
Aug 7, 2008
1,633
1,053
Lehighton, Pennsylvania
So they want to force this massive disruption and expenditure for a technology (5G) that has yet to be proven to work in the real world? I'm sorry but it's time to tell these people to make their ideas work within existing allocations. Enough is enough. Gee, fiber never gets accidentally ripped up, does it? :rolleyes:

If the FCC wants to do something actually worthwhile to benefit consumers then they should get off their fat duffs and mandate universal broadband. The US ranks 18th in the world, 18th, in broadband access. As of 2016 the FCC claimed 95.7 % of households have access to broadband and the avg speed is 109Mbps. What world do these yokles live in? However, their own physical report released in 2016 states avg download speed is 55.7Mbps and ranks 10th in the world for speed. Hmmm, didn't they just say it was 109Mbps? Perhaps FCC employees should speak to one another and coordinate their numbers. All this points out that unlike unproven pie in the sky 5G, their number 1 priority should be universal broadband access, since this economy is now Internet driven, and 5G isn't the answer. Where broadband access doesn't exist today it won't exist when, and if, 5G rolls out either. I don't believe for one minute that any company, given the limited range of 5G is going to expend all the monies necessary to deploy it universally. So, SD, ND, and all you guys in the boonies, don't hold your breath.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim S. and FTA4PA

907TECH

SatelliteGuys Family
Aug 29, 2018
109
130
Alaska
So they want to force this massive disruption and expenditure for a technology (5G) that has yet to be proven to work in the real world? I'm sorry but it's time to tell these people to make their ideas work within existing allocations. Enough is enough. Gee, fiber never gets accidentally ripped up, does it? :rolleyes:

If the FCC wants to do something actually worthwhile to benefit consumers then they should get off their fat duffs and mandate universal broadband. The US ranks 18th in the world, 18th, in broadband access. As of 2016 the FCC claimed 95.7 % of households have access to broadband and the avg speed is 109Mbps. What world do these yokles live in? However, their own physical report released in 2016 states avg download speed is 55.7Mbps and ranks 10th in the world for speed. Hmmm, didn't they just say it was 109Mbps? Perhaps FCC employees should speak to one another and coordinate their numbers. All this points out that unlike unproven pie in the sky 5G, their number 1 priority should be universal broadband access, since this economy is now Internet driven, and 5G isn't the answer. Where broadband access doesn't exist today it won't exist when, and if, 5G rolls out either. I don't believe for one minute that any company, given the limited range of 5G is going to expend all the monies necessary to deploy it universally. So, SD, ND, and all you guys in the boonies, don't hold your breath.
5G will not work on existing allocations, it is going to require higher frequencies. I work in Alaska, fortunately we got a C band exemption and will not be affected. And trust me, 5G will work as advertised. And as for broadband speeds, the US has far flung population centers and vast open spaces, most of the countries with the fastest speeds are densely populated with already built out backhaul capabilities. Somebody has to pay for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: truckracer

navychop

Member of the Month - July 2014!
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 20, 2005
48,073
13,030
Northern VA
5G does not require higher frequencies. T-Mobile is deploying 5G in the 600 band. Granted, it won’t be much better than 4G in that band, but it is 5G. And the signal will travel further and penetrate buildings better than mm wave.


Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys App. For now.
 

Radioguy41

SatelliteGuys Pro
Aug 7, 2008
1,633
1,053
Lehighton, Pennsylvania
5G will not work on existing allocations, it is going to require higher frequencies. I work in Alaska, fortunately we got a C band exemption and will not be affected. And trust me, 5G will work as advertised. And as for broadband speeds, the US has far flung population centers and vast open spaces, most of the countries with the fastest speeds are densely populated with already built out backhaul capabilities. Somebody has to pay for it.
Norway, Sweden, and Spain are not generally considered densely populated and yet they all rank ahead of the US for instance. As for 5G, they admit it has substantial range limitations and does not penetrate walls so we'll see how well it does in the real world. Until proven otherwise 5G is pie-in-the-sky.

5G Will Hit A Wall, Literally, In 2019

Millimeter-wave 5G will never scale beyond dense urban areas, T-Mobile says

US Operators Encounter Limits of 5G on mmWave Spectrum - SDxCentr
 

VictoriaFTA

SatelliteGuys Guru
Sep 20, 2018
128
158
Midwest
5G should be useful for stationary uses just like our dishes. You install an antenna for reception at the receive site and then run it to a wireless router to provide Wi-Fi coverage for the premises. It should be a solid substitute for those who can't get FTTP.

Where its performance will be questionable is on your cell phone while wandering around cities and going in and out of buildings. It sounds like it's going to be even flakier than 4G is when it comes to devices on the move.
 

Shicks4

SatelliteGuys Pro
Aug 29, 2015
470
253
Kansas
I think the basic problem overall with internet access and cost in the United States is greed or at least the desire to make a significant chunk of money off of consumers.

It is true that in countries such as Iraq comparing satellite internet with available satellite internet available in the United States it is cheaper, faster and no data limit in Iraq but severely capped and slower in the US. This is in part because there are more people in the is that want fast internet with no data cap, but many other countries have not only faster internet but better overall distribution.

In the US nearly everything prefers a network connection, and we use a lot of online resources for quicker more convenient lifestyles. We also have more money then most of these other countries, and businesses want to make a profit and shareholders want returns on investment. The sad ugly truth is in the United States we are somewhat a victim of our own success.

It also appears we are moving past existing infrastructure quite rapidly, and constantly developing newer protocols that require a new infrastructure so older infrastructure development stagnates or is abandoned all together. I never understood why it’s taken so long to deploy fiber, it’s been around for a very long time. Southwestern Bell in partnership with Ericsson deployed fiber between most towns in the mid 90’s but fiber stopped at the telco offices converted to travel out on twisted pair. There are places that are just now getting fiber to the home. Ironically it appears in my area smaller towns are first then climbing up to larger towns in phases. My town received fiber to home 3 years ago however the town 8 miles south is just now getting fiber to home and it’s close to twice as big. I grant you larger cities not only have more options but probably were first to receive most offerings of fast internet but there is a large discrepancy in how long fiber has taken to reach mid sized cities.

I probably will never understand the politics behind most things and I probably don’t want to. But when I know some farmer in a shack in the Middle East has had better internet then I had for years in arguably the most advanced and industrialized nation in the world there’s a problem that likely could have been solved had the major carriers not had their eyes focused on low hanging fruit.
 

comfortably_numb

Dogs have owners, cats have staff
Pub Member / Supporter
Nov 30, 2011
7,979
8,434
Missouri/Kansas
I think the basic problem overall with internet access and cost in the United States is greed or at least the desire to make a significant chunk of money off of consumers.

It is true that in countries such as Iraq comparing satellite internet with available satellite internet available in the United States it is cheaper, faster and no data limit in Iraq but severely capped and slower in the US. This is in part because there are more people in the is that want fast internet with no data cap, but many other countries have not only faster internet but better overall distribution.

In the US nearly everything prefers a network connection, and we use a lot of online resources for quicker more convenient lifestyles. We also have more money then most of these other countries, and businesses want to make a profit and shareholders want returns on investment. The sad ugly truth is in the United States we are somewhat a victim of our own success.

It also appears we are moving past existing infrastructure quite rapidly, and constantly developing newer protocols that require a new infrastructure so older infrastructure development stagnates or is abandoned all together. I never understood why it’s taken so long to deploy fiber, it’s been around for a very long time. Southwestern Bell in partnership with Ericsson deployed fiber between most towns in the mid 90’s but fiber stopped at the telco offices converted to travel out on twisted pair. There are places that are just now getting fiber to the home. Ironically it appears in my area smaller towns are first then climbing up to larger towns in phases. My town received fiber to home 3 years ago however the town 8 miles south is just now getting fiber to home and it’s close to twice as big. I grant you larger cities not only have more options but probably were first to receive most offerings of fast internet but there is a large discrepancy in how long fiber has taken to reach mid sized cities.

I probably will never understand the politics behind most things and I probably don’t want to. But when I know some farmer in a shack in the Middle East has had better internet then I had for years in arguably the most advanced and industrialized nation in the world there’s a problem that likely could have been solved had the major carriers not had their eyes focused on low hanging fruit.
Living in a rural area is a choice. Internet access is not (yet) considered a necessity like water and power. As we say in my town population 962, "It's the price you pay to live in paradise." If gigabit internet was all that important to me, I'd move up to the city. I choose not to, so I deal with the consequences.

Companies are in business to make money; there isn't as much profit in a town of 962 vs. a town of 2.1 million.
 

Shicks4

SatelliteGuys Pro
Aug 29, 2015
470
253
Kansas
Living in a rural area is a choice. Internet access is not (yet) considered a necessity like water and power. As we say in my town population 962, "It's the price you pay to live in paradise." If gigabit internet was all that important to me, I'd move up to the city. I choose not to, so I deal with the consequences.

Companies are in business to make money; there isn't as much profit in a town of 962 vs. a town of 2.1 million.
All true, however for instance at&t abandoned dsl in my town 4 years ago. We are a town of roughly 1800. For 6 months we had to rely on Celular WiFi hotspots. Another company laid fiber and we now have internet. AT&T tried to stop the new carrier from bringing in fiber. Long story short there was some money that changed hands and some legal rulings and we got the fiber from the new telco, and I now have 5x faster internet then I had from at&t for the same cost I was previously paying. So it appears in some cases it’s big business not only ignoring small communities but preventing other telco from offering it.

And again I’m not aware of how or why other less populated countries have access to better internet in more rural areas then even I am but it’s kinda interesting and somewhat frustrating considering all of the tech available in the is but virtually useless in many rural areas. Unless you have deep pockets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FTA4PA

truckracer

SatelliteGuys Pro
Sep 17, 2004
4,308
318
Charleston wv
So they want to force this massive disruption and expenditure for a technology (5G) that has yet to be proven to work in the real world? I'm sorry but it's time to tell these people to make their ideas work within existing allocations. Enough is enough. Gee, fiber never gets accidentally ripped up, does it? :rolleyes:

If the FCC wants to do something actually worthwhile to benefit consumers then they should get off their fat duffs and mandate universal broadband. The US ranks 18th in the world, 18th, in broadband access. As of 2016 the FCC claimed 95.7 % of households have access to broadband and the avg speed is 109Mbps. What world do these yokles live in? However, their own physical report released in 2016 states avg download speed is 55.7Mbps and ranks 10th in the world for speed. Hmmm, didn't they just say it was 109Mbps? Perhaps FCC employees should speak to one another and coordinate their numbers. All this points out that unlike unproven pie in the sky 5G, their number 1 priority should be universal broadband access, since this economy is now Internet driven, and 5G isn't the answer. Where broadband access doesn't exist today it won't exist when, and if, 5G rolls out either. I don't believe for one minute that any company, given the limited range of 5G is going to expend all the monies necessary to deploy it universally. So, SD, ND, and all you guys in the boonies, don't hold your breath.
We have Xfinity as a provider. They are expensive here vs speeds. We are lucky to get 20bmbits download.

Sent from my 14.4 K dialup connected IBM Think Centre
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Top