5G Networks Will Likely Interfere With US Weather Satellites, Navy Warns (arstechnica.com) 62
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A U.S. Navy memo warns that 5G mobile networks are likely to interfere with weather satellites, and senators are urging the Federal Communications Commission to avoid issuing new spectrum licenses to wireless carriers until changes are made to prevent harms to weather forecasting. The FCC has already begun an auction of 24GHz spectrum that would be used in 5G networks. But Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) today wrote a letter to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, asking him to avoid issuing licenses to winning bidders "until the FCC approves the passive band protection limits that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) determine are necessary to protect critical satellite-based measurements of atmospheric water vapor needed to forecast the weather."
The internal Navy memo on the topic, written on March 27 by U.S. Naval Observatory Superintendent Marc Eckardt, was made public by Wyden and Cantwell today. The Navy memo cited NOAA and NASA studies on interference from 24GHz spectrum, which is intended for mobile use and is adjacent to spectrum used for weather operations. "[A]s such, it is expected that interference will result in a partial-to-complete loss of remotely sensed water-vapor measurements," the Navy memo said. "It is also expected that impacts will be concentrated in urban areas of the United States first." The problem could affect Navy and Marine Corps forecasts of tropical cyclones as well as rain, ice, and snow, the memo said. The Navy memo recommends asking the FCC to "tighten out-of-band interference by reducing bleed-over limits to -57dB." The memo also says the Navy should "work with NOAA and NASA to continually assess and quantify actual impacts" and develop mitigations including "limited use of other channels, substitution of lesser-fidelity parameters, and the development of new techniques and algorithms through new research and development."
The internal Navy memo on the topic, written on March 27 by U.S. Naval Observatory Superintendent Marc Eckardt, was made public by Wyden and Cantwell today. The Navy memo cited NOAA and NASA studies on interference from 24GHz spectrum, which is intended for mobile use and is adjacent to spectrum used for weather operations. "[A]s such, it is expected that interference will result in a partial-to-complete loss of remotely sensed water-vapor measurements," the Navy memo said. "It is also expected that impacts will be concentrated in urban areas of the United States first." The problem could affect Navy and Marine Corps forecasts of tropical cyclones as well as rain, ice, and snow, the memo said. The Navy memo recommends asking the FCC to "tighten out-of-band interference by reducing bleed-over limits to -57dB." The memo also says the Navy should "work with NOAA and NASA to continually assess and quantify actual impacts" and develop mitigations including "limited use of other channels, substitution of lesser-fidelity parameters, and the development of new techniques and algorithms through new research and development."
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The U.S. Navy has bombs. The FCC does not.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's a limited public good, the FCC is only authorized to manage it on our behalf. At least that's the theory.
Re: (Score:2)
How does the Navy or DoD compete with anyone in any market?
They're talking about 5G radiation interfering with the ability to measure moisture content from orbit, which is one of the important functions of weather satellites. Satellites that are increasingly important as the climate becomes unstable and makes weather prediction much more difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Either the FCC didn't engage all stakeholders in advance, which I doubt, or the Navy dragged its feet thinking it would be manageable.
Ha. Spectrum doesn't defer to political or economic forces, it just is. Permissions are subject to political and/or economic forces, and here we are, essentially fighting over money.
Of course this could be a red herring, and the US military is worried they cannot quite manage this spectrum worldwide. We have transitioned form air superiority being the first priority to E
Non-issue (Score:5, Interesting)
Nobody is actually going to deliver anything on this spectrum anytime soon... if ever. This spectrum is just used to stick something with outrageous speeds in the spec, then the wireless carriers use the "lightning fast" performance of 5G as a selling point but actually provide below 6ghz and essentially the same speed as 4G but cheaper for them to operate service plus sell all new phones. They actually did something similar with 4G which is why you don't and never will have what they originally sold you on as 4G.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is actually going to deliver anything on this spectrum anytime soon... if ever.
You're probably right. We'd likely be better off if they don't, since as soon as the mean user can download game play for Candy Crush or a Fakebook picture a smidgen faster, it'll be fuck all to the early warning weather alert system.
Re: Non-issue (Score:3)
He charges a lot more than $10.
Re: (Score:2)
First you must define "shitty service" as anywhere outside downtown in a major city. Second, they literally had to make up new terms for what US carriers actually implemented.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTE_(telecommunication)
Re: (Score:2)
not that I use it that much, wifi at home, wifi at work, wifi in a bunch of places in between
inasmuch, I can see how 5g is a major step up, but for me, personally, in my anecdote of one, it is a meh...
Re: (Score:2)
"and my 4gLTE is as solid as a rock..."
And still not 4G. Which is literally why they aren't allowed to call it that. Here is a hint, with real 4G your connection would be faster and as reliable as a home Verizon FIOS (fiber to the premise) connection circa about a year ago. Saying it isn't actual 4G doesn't mean it sucks from a subjective analysis, it just sucks compared to actual 4G. If you had actual 4G and went back to 4gLTE you'd then say it sucks.
The US deployed 5G may be "solid as a rock" as well but
Re: (Score:2)
The 4G (and other) standards only ever specified a theoretical peak performance. Just because you're not getting 1gbps doesn't mean you aren't getting exactly the 4G that was promised to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. As I've said over and over again now. Not following the 4G standard means you aren't getting exactly the 4G that was promised to you. They had to make up a whole new standard and put 4G in the name as false advertising to create the illusion of giving you what was promised to you, they call it 4G LTE.
With 5G you will get the 5G that was actually promised, lots of talk about things in the 5G standard you won't get will and are being used to create ambiguity that makes you think that is something good fo
Re: (Score:2)
"Here is a hint, with real 4G your connection would be faster and as reliable as a home Verizon FIOS (fiber to the premise) connection circa about a year ago."
Also, 1gbps is the max speed, not the average speed, you'd get TODAY on that link, not the sub 100mbps speed circa a year ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm... no, this was the US Naval observatory making an observation about their anticipation of interference of 26ghz wireless with moisture detection sensors in weather satellites. Which of course is code for aliens, used to be weather balloons, now they say satellites.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a layman in this matter and am not sure what I was promised back in the days, but I don't think there are many things for which the 250Mbit down / 10Mbit up that my phone reports (probably 20/10 in real-life applications) are not sufficient. And for that matter, I also don't think that from a consumer perspective there's any reason for 5G.
A little late for this warning? (Score:1)
I feel like maybe someone should have brought this up before the rest of the world had already deployed their 5G networks.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Buy them new weather/spy satellites.
Then everyone is happy. Trendy new weather/spy satellites for the US mil. Urban 5G for all.
Re: (Score:3)
They did say something, but the companies didn't care.
They're repeating themselves now, which is not really there thing. But the companies still don't care.
When the lawsuits prevent the spectrum from actually being used, the companies still will not care about what their technology interferes with, they'll only whine, cry, stamp their feet, and demand to be allowed anyways.
And then when they lose the court cases, they'll blame hippies, polar bears, and Santa Claus.
Re: (Score:2)
egads s/there/their/
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you never heard of the War on Christmas!
You want to see people start blaming Santa Claus, just celebrate Secular Christmas and say Happy Holidays while using Santa as your symbol of the season, and watch the haters hate.
I wish I was being sarcastic. If somebody had predicted this future when I was a kid, I would have called them names.
Re: (Score:1)
fu[k Santa Claus.
Hey Santa Clause you [unt you forgot my fu[kin pram,
You promised me you'd bring me one, you remember who I am
Cause I'm the little girl what you made sit right on your hand.
I'll give you fu[kin' ho ho ho, you forgot me fu[king pram
Re:Did nobody (Score:5, Insightful)
New satellites wouldn't help. It's not a transmission frequency. They are bouncing 23.8GHz signals off the water vapor layer to see how much gets bounced back. This is a natural frequency that water vapor interacts with. Designing a new satellite is far from as simple as selecting a new frequency.
Re: (Score:2)
Protect the frequency.
Give the US Navy/mil super new weather/spy satellites.
What did all the smart people in the US Navy who "read up" and "study" weather/spy satellites/frequency doing when 5G got started?
Re: (Score:2)
Designing a new satellite is far from as simple as selecting a new frequency.
Man, all this wireless crap is just weird and unreliable. Just run a CAT-6 NIC to the satellite and hook it up to a balloon floating router like the FaceBook dude wanted to do. If the satellite happens moves a little bit, the balloon just follows it around. Make the cable bright red instead of sky-blue so no planes fly into it. Problem solved.
JEEZ you people.
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny. Too bad the 23.8GHz is not for transmitting data - it's for detecting water vapor. Terrestrial 23.8GHz transmitters would give false reflection readings.
Re: (Score:2)
Ajit Pai is helping the administration say "What climate change? We can't see any changes to weather patterns. In fact, we can't see the weather at all!" /tinfoil
Re:So what? (Score:4, Informative)
Funny, but it's not just about predictions. They're saying it could interfere with real-time tracking of storms. Logistically that puts some critical industries back into the 18th century. Imagine fishermen no longer being able to hear on the radio a plausibly-accurate prediction of where the storm appears to be going as seen from space, and having that replaced with... nothing. No weather predictions for anything beyond line-of-sight. That could be a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
No weather predictions for anything beyond line-of-sight. That could be a problem.
That's a fantasy scenario. 5G coverage is of limited range, and the interference will thus only cover populated areas within some radius of 5G transmitters operating near the frequency that are putting out too much out-of-band noise -- as far as we know there won't be 5G towers in the the middle of the ocean --- so they should have no troubles bouncing signals off moisture there.
Re: (Score:3)
The powers that be decided that copper wire phones are obsolete
So I've got fiber to the house.
It's the users that demand HD streaming to their fondleslab while driving down the sidewalk at 50 MPH.
What a dumb idea (Score:3)
Why would you want to use 25GHz anyway?
It's one of the frequencies that water in the atmosphere absorbs.
Stick to between 5cm and 10m wavelengths.
5-10 is a little crowded, doesn't have 10Gb bandwi (Score:4, Informative)
That band around 2.4 GHz a great region. Everyone should use it.
Hmm, maybe that's why everyone does use it. Total bandwidth of the entire band, for all users and all uses, is on the order of 10Gbs or so. 5G is planning for 10 Gbps *per person*. So unless you're the only person uaing it, that band won't work for 5G.
For the kind of bandwidth wanted from 5G, you need a much higher frequency band. Which also means it won't go through walls, rain, etc.
Physics is a bitch when you want to stream HD on a mobile all day.
Re: (Score:3)
That's exactly why you want it. The majority of the overall throughput increase in cell networks has come not from improving the coding or increasing the frequency allocations, but from reducing the cell sizes. In areas where the network is in high demand, you want something with a shorter range so you can pack more cells in, because each cell has its own separate throughput.
Lower frequencies (which generally have a longer range) are for areas with lower demand, where you want bigger cells.
Navy came at this wrong (Score:2)
They should have cautioned that 5G frequencies were dangerously close to the HARM [wikipedia.org] missile receive window. And these weapons have a particular affinity for streaming video.
Re: (Score:2)
hmmm (Score:2)
I thought that 'weather satellies tended to be up at geosync orbit - 25,000 miles or so. and shouldn't be affected by phones.
Re: (Score:2)
The lower they are, the more detail they can gather data with. Polar orbits are good for weather satellites. The problem is the instrumentation they use overlaps with the proposed 5G frequencies.
Signal decay? (Score:2)
Is it really a problem? Isn't such high frequency very short range? That would mean the satellite signal and cell signal wouldn't mix because there is too much atmosphere between the two.
And if the signal is strong enough to reach the satellites, wouldn't it be very diffuse then, more like a background noise? If so, it could even help [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Certain frequency work best when illuminating water vapour for density analysis. So 5G seems to be pushing into frequencies where water interacts more and we are made of water, so lots of transmitter probably not the best idea.