5G Effects

[AKar]

Bandwidth is why. Using the higher frequency part of the band gets more capacity and more speed. It’s cited a lot as why the US went higher in frequency.

How do they reason this? There are several of lower frequency bands supporting the (maximum) 100 MHz channel bandwidths. Or are all of these already in other uses in the US?

-Esa

[CAPFlyer]

Bandwidth is why. Using the higher frequency part of the band gets more capacity and more speed. It’s cited a lot as why the US went higher in frequency.

How do they reason this? There are several of lower frequency bands supporting the (maximum) 100 MHz channel bandwidths. Or are all of these already in other uses in the US?

-Esa

Yes, but that same 100MHz channel at a higher frequency will allow more data to be moved through the channel, but I agree. The amount more isn't enough to really make that much of a difference for the additional bitrate considering what the spectrum is.

Blaming government workers seems to be the go-to now. If the rank and file weren’t doing their jobs, that’s on the managers and higher-ups.

No, I'm blaming the careerists. That includes everyone *except* the political appointees. The political appointees like Pai do set some of the agenda and he definitely pushed a lot of things that were questionable, but much of the programs were in process well before Pai and will continue to be after him. Yes, he influenced some things, but the mismanagement of federal agencies has been a problem since the 1950s and that has nothing to do with some guy appointed by whomever happens to be at 1600 Pennsylvania.

[AKar]

Bandwidth is why. Using the higher frequency part of the band gets more capacity and more speed. It’s cited a lot as why the US went higher in frequency.

How do they reason this? There are several of lower frequency bands supporting the (maximum) 100 MHz channel bandwidths. Or are all of these already in other uses in the US?

-Esa

Yes, but that same 100MHz channel at a higher frequency will allow more data to be moved through the channel, but I agree. The amount more isn't enough to really make that much of a difference for the additional bitrate considering what the spectrum is.

The data transmission rate is not a function of the (carrier) frequency, but of the range of frequencies that is utilized in the channel. This is where the term 'bandwidth' actually originates from, in the context of data transmission rate, and is in the heart of information theory.

Of course, typically higher frequencies tend to have advantages in what comes to spatial multiplexing trickery used in 5G and later WIFIs, among the others, and may have better noise characteristics as well. (Without those pesky radio altimeters all over, that is!) But regardless, I'd be surprised if there were any significant advantages given the selection of the (globally) utilized 5G bands. There could be - that is, I don't know, I just doubt.

-Esa

[AerialShorts]

I don’t know the full history on why the US carriers used spectrum so close to the airline/aviation uses but everything I saw mentioned that there were data rate advantages to the higher frequencies.

Certainly there are examples like the old 74MHz TV frequencies where all the stations were equivalent even though the differences in frequencies meant there could be significant differences in information carried. But the articles I saw on the phones vs radar altimeter situation mentioned the advantage to higher frequencies. Maybe it’s not data rates per se but more calls or who knows?

At any rate it was cited but now I assume all equipment in question (which apparently wasn’t all that much) has been passed or replaced.