Carriers Want To Hide Detailed 5G Maps From FCC and Public (arstechnica.com) 40
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: AT&T and other mobile carriers are trying to hide detailed 5G maps from the public despite constantly touting the supposed pace and breadth of their 5G rollouts. With the Federal Communications Commission planning to require carriers to submit more accurate data about broadband deployment, AT&T and the mobile industry's top lobby group are urging the FCC to exclude 5G from the upgraded data collection. "There is broad agreement that it is not yet time to require reporting on 5G coverage," AT&T told the FCC in a filing this week.
As evidence of that "broad agreement," AT&T cited comments by CTIA -- the mobile industry lobby group that represents AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint. "[A]s CTIA points out, service standards for 5G are still emerging, precluding reporting of service-level coverage for 5G networks (other than the 5G-NR submissions already required)," AT&T wrote. That's a reference to 5G New Radio, the global standard for 5G. CTIA told the FCC in September that it doesn't object to the 5G-NR requirement because "the 5G-NR standards are technical ones; they do not establish what service level consumers should be able to expect when using 5G." But CTIA said requiring more than that would be "premature" because "industry consensus is still emerging around how best to measure the deployment of this still-nascent technology." Verizon also told the FCC in September that "adoption of standardized parameters is premature" for 5G. "Calling 5G a 'still-nascent technology' that can't properly be measured yet raises the question of why carriers have been telling the FCC and public that 5G is guaranteed to revolutionize modern life and that carriers need regulatory favors to speed its rollout," adds Ars Technica. "The mobile industry didn't think it was 'premature' for the U.S. government to preempt local regulation of 5G deployments, an action FCC Chairman Ajit Pai took more than a year ago."
As evidence of that "broad agreement," AT&T cited comments by CTIA -- the mobile industry lobby group that represents AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint. "[A]s CTIA points out, service standards for 5G are still emerging, precluding reporting of service-level coverage for 5G networks (other than the 5G-NR submissions already required)," AT&T wrote. That's a reference to 5G New Radio, the global standard for 5G. CTIA told the FCC in September that it doesn't object to the 5G-NR requirement because "the 5G-NR standards are technical ones; they do not establish what service level consumers should be able to expect when using 5G." But CTIA said requiring more than that would be "premature" because "industry consensus is still emerging around how best to measure the deployment of this still-nascent technology." Verizon also told the FCC in September that "adoption of standardized parameters is premature" for 5G. "Calling 5G a 'still-nascent technology' that can't properly be measured yet raises the question of why carriers have been telling the FCC and public that 5G is guaranteed to revolutionize modern life and that carriers need regulatory favors to speed its rollout," adds Ars Technica. "The mobile industry didn't think it was 'premature' for the U.S. government to preempt local regulation of 5G deployments, an action FCC Chairman Ajit Pai took more than a year ago."
Re:Probably for good reason (Score:5, Interesting)
5G mandates MIMO and Beam steering which in turn makes the beams highly directional. As a result the "side lobes" spill becomes comparable in magnitude to reflections from aircraft crossing the main beam and that is a something which makes all Stealth aircraft "shine" to anyone capable of processing signals from the main lobe and reflections simultaneously.
https://www.fagain.co.uk/node/16
As a side effect, you never know if you have already "shown yourself" on radar or not.
That is the real reason for the whole anti-5G campaign, everything else is secondary and the whole cancer spiel is bollocks. 5G reuses existing frequencies like f.e. Analogue TV (which in turn is also a frequency band in which Stealth does not work) and mobile. It also uses only a small fraction of the power. If any of that was giving cancer we would be walking in warts all over 10 times by now.
Re:Probably for good reason (Score:5, Insightful)
It's always about the money for these companies and the most likely reason they don't want the maps published is the abysmal coverage 5G currently has. That will put a crimp on their sales of 5G phones and the more expensive subscription fees associated with 5G.
Re: (Score:2)
[_] we want to promote 5G and have 5G mapped
[_] it's too early to map 5G and too early to parade our fish hawking
pick one
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this.
It's a catch-22 all the way around.
Consumers aren't going to bother buying it until the coverage makes it practical.
Carriers aren't going to build out more coverage until more consumers are buying it.
Reminds me of the VR problem.
Folks don't buy VR gear due to lack of titles made for VR. :|
Developers won't spend money developing titles until more folks buy VR gear.
how can you compare the carriers? (Score:4, Insightful)
how can you compare the carriers if you don't have any idea where the 5g works. can the carrier even explain what benefits 5g has for you though? are they going to give you cheaper connection, unlimited data? probably not, so what does it matter anyways - you can max amount your plan in usa in a matter of hours anyways. 5g is quite akin to folding display phones: doesn't matter, don't care, but it's something companies feel like they absolutely need to have to get consumer eyes on them.
but the maps are quite obviously quite important to have before signing up for 2 years of paying tens of dollars per month.
Re: (Score:2)
Comparing carriers is already difficult with good maps. In my area, Verizon has "the best coverage". For seven years, I worked in an office in which Verizon phones get no service. We were a big Verizon customer, so we had the leverage to get a tech to come out and try various solutions such as micro cells. They eventually gave up. So, although the maps say Verizon is my best choice, I spent 40 hours a week in a place where Verizon was useless to me. I asked around and my coworkers had the best luck with AT
Re: (Score:2)
We were a big Verizon customer, so we had the leverage to get a tech to come out and try various solutions such as micro cells.
Sounds like they need to hire new techs. If I was able to get cell service working in an office trailer inside of a power plant in Middle of Nowhere North Dakota, an actual professional should have been able to figure an office out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The point still stands that it doesn't matter what the general coverage of a carrier is, it matters whether your phone works.
100% agreed. And from what I've heard/read about the 5g stuff, this is only going to get worse. I can see even things like the difference between summer and winter (leaves on the trees vs no leaves) really screwing with people's coverage.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a good reason (Score:4, Insightful)
And a whole lot of the so called 5-G hate is just coming from people with some familiarity of the laws of physics. And haven't we gone over that enough?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:There is a good reason (Score:4, Informative)
Funny, since "4G" is also more like 3.9G. (Score:2)
So this would be 3.9.9.9G now?
Because we can just NEVER upgrade, and rake in money forever.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:There is a good reason (Score:4, Interesting)
It's one of the few things where the conspiracy goofballs and people who actually do understand what they're talking about will be on the same side. For very different reasons, mind you, but ...
Re: (Score:2)
It's one of the few things where the conspiracy goofballs and people who actually do understand what they're talking about will be on the same side. For very different reasons, mind you, but ...
Hey!! I ..... that's not......Oh hell, you are 100 percent correct.
Re: (Score:2)
5G coverage will look like crap compared to 4G.
And a whole lot of the so called 5-G hate is just coming from people with some familiarity of the laws of physics. And haven't we gone over that enough?
We live in the age of emotionally generated facts and for the fans of emotionally generated facts it's not a big leap to imagination generated physics.
Faith based physics?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, of course ALL physics is "faith based". I have long asserted that a true existentialist couldn't walk across the room, because they couldn't know that the floor would be where they put their foot.
The question is: "How do you decide where to place your faith?".
Personally, I trust (with reservations) independently repeated experiments. But how do I know what are the relevant boundary conditions? Faith.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, of course ALL physics is "faith based". I have long asserted that a true existentialist couldn't walk across the room, because they couldn't know that the floor would be where they put their foot.
The question is: "How do you decide where to place your faith?".
Personally, I trust (with reservations) independently repeated experiments. But how do I know what are the relevant boundary conditions? Faith.
There is confidence, and there is faith. I can have good confidence that the earth will rotate, and there will be a sunrise tomorrow. That's based on knowing that the earth is orbiting the sun, and that the earth is rotating.
A person can have faith that the sun rotates around the earth with absolutely no knowledge whatsoever, only belief.
Faith requires nothing but belief. Not knowledge, not experimental results, no observations. only belief.
Re: (Score:2)
If you didn't have faith in your memory of the sun having previously risen, you wouldn't have reason to believe it would rise. If you didn't have faith in your model of the earth rotating, then you wouldn't act as if it were true.
Faith is as the basis of every decision. The question is "Faith in what?". When I have faith in "independently repeated experiments" I have faith that it's not a plot to fool me, that things happened as represented, etc. There are lots of boundary conditions that are accepted o
Re: (Score:2)
If you didn't have faith in your memory of the sun having previously risen, you wouldn't have reason to believe it would rise.
Wrong. Faith has no need to be correct. I can have faith that the sun will appear in the west in the morning, or will zig-zag across the sky.
Reasonable certainty is not even faith. Let's take something that you might understand better than orbital mechanics.
If someone raises a pistol and shoots me in the arm, I have a reasonable certainty that I will feel pain. Not a bit of faith involved, but a reasonable certainty that a rapidly propelled projectile will cause destruction of my flesh. I also have a r
If they don't start now it'll be harder later..... (Score:1)
Public Airwaves (Score:5, Insightful)
They're either public or they're not. People need to know where spectrum is in use - for whatever reason, including competition. Any other position is anti-competive by nature.
I'd say, fine, no need to disclose the maps for 5G. Just no license, then, and absolutely no subsidies or monopoly grants.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you 100%.
Unfortunately the telco lobby has a larger wallet than all of us here put together. And money talks.
Because it isn't 5G! (Score:1)
Alright carriers. You are banned from defrauding us by calling it 5G then.
Besides ... Frequencies that barely go through walls and base station ranges that approach Wifi ranges ...
What's next? Terahertz wifi 6G and IRDA 7G.
Think of something outside of that box! It is full!
Wasn't there already this "virtual personal base stations through interference" technology, demostrated in practice, a decade ago?
Re: (Score:3)
There will come a point of diminishing returns. For most mobile devices 4G is almost there. Even in the most crowded places I still get enough bandwidth to stream 720p video. When I use my phone as a hotspot I still get speeds that are more that fast enough for me. Right now on LTE I'm getting 30 Mbps down and 10 up. Which is better than most public hotspots.
If 5G lives up to the hype, 1000 times faster than LTE, I think we will be at that point of diminishing returns.
Re: (Score:2)
To hide the spotty deployment, that's why (Score:2)
Advertising (Score:1)
5g can't get here soon enough!!!1!11!! (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
>But with 5g, I would be able to exceed my cap in under a minute
>Think of the absolutely amazing overage fees
Those two points are unrelated. Your bandwidth may increase, but you have to use it to get overage fees. A 720p video will draw the same data no matter what your bandwidth is. Sure, if you now start watching 100 youtube videos at the same time, you will burn your allowance up in hours. But are you really going to do that?
You will get faster start times, for the same cost.
Re: (Score:2)
5G in 5 years (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
5G is being used to map people in real-time (Score:1)
They cannot because the RF spectrum is public (Score:2)