But if you explain it away by promising some level of water resistance, all is forgiven.
FCC to sell c band spectrum
- Thread starter nelson61
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 130
- Views 16K
Not for me. I've had the same phone for 3 years, and have managed to keep it dry for the duration. Great phone. I have a ZTE Axon 7. Bought it for $400 unlocked when it first was released in 2016. It's still an awesome phone and am just now having battery wear issues. Of course the battery is sealed, so I am either gonna have to take it apart to swap in a replacement, or pay a local shop $50 to do it. Either way, the phone is still very fast and meets my needs. Word of the wise: buy unlocked! Carrier phones are full of bloatware and useless apps that just slow drain your battery.
With respect to 5g having a distance propogation problem....this is where AirGig comes in. There are many ways to do this that dont require c band spectrum, they are just buying it because they can. Same reason they are wanting to buy T band. They dont care that 911/law enforcement needs it, they just know that right now there is an FCC that will do it.
I didn't know what the T Band was, but Googling it shows they're wanting to sell 470 MHz to 512 MHz. I don't see how they can do that with UHF channels 14 to 20 overlapping on those frequencies. The TV bands will already be tightly packed next year, and it would seem that any cell phones operating in this band would cause quite a bit of issues.
on the other hand, those channels are not used much... 21-36 are very much in use, but I don't get anything on 14-20. I think those are supposed to be used for mobile DTV.
I live near two markets that have channels in those frequencies, so I don't think their seldom used.
On another note, I spoke with an expert who stated that those frequencies on the T-band were only in used in certain markets only. Hopefully that doesn't affect many.
I was just worried that the FCC would use that in some way as an excuse to further carve up the spectrum for sale in the future.
On another note, I spoke with an expert who stated that those frequencies on the T-band were only in used in certain markets only. Hopefully that doesn't affect many.
I was just worried that the FCC would use that in some way as an excuse to further carve up the spectrum for sale in the future.
Last edited:
I have one channel in T-Band, but markets in Greenville and Jackson, MS have several. I receive Fox 14 from Jackson, MS at 262 miles away on my OTA antenna frequently at night. This is mostly because there are no channels in my state on channel 14.
I am sick of it too. The FCC is in the phone carriers' back pocket. Is it not obvious?? Bandwidth is already too tight for most OTA TV markets.
Well playing devils advocate, and as an employee of a telecom company, 5G development and growth is crucial for US competitiveness in the world market moving forward. The sacrifice placed on broadcasters was justified and necessary. OTA can work without the spectrum that is being taken, 5G can't advance to it's potential without that spectrum. You may disagree.
Over the air tv may disappear altogether. They have been inching in on it for years.
All tv viewing will require a data connection through a provider. TV that watches you back!
Sent from our Pleadian star ship
UHF DTV is already hard enough to receive being line of sight. When they pack it in tighter and less error correction, you will have to have a Gazillion db gain antenna precisely directed to get anything.
Sent from our Pleadian star ship
Only if this competitiveness is coming from areas well off the beaten path or buried deep inside office towers. Most business doesn't live or die on B2B/EDI and a lot of those problems could be lessened by using operating systems that weren't built on UTF16 and getting away from XML and other bloaty interchange formats (you know who you are, Excel spreadsheets).
Nobody said you have to host your World-visible servers inside your office.
If wireless keeps going, the five-legged frogs from down by the chemical plant are going to be seeing some human visitors at the freak meetings.
We were like that here until last year.
Our electric coop has ran FTTH now over much of their service area.
I’m way out in the country, in the ‘woods’ and have gigabit fiber now, it is unbelievable.
Never thought I’d have that kind of service here.
Just we need. More coercion into paying for ad-riddled television. Maybe Star Trek was right where the character "Data" stated that TV didn't make it past the early part of the 21st century. Life without TV? How boring! Well, there's always virtual reality.......
The UHF frequencies are going to be needed as well as microwave freqs. As far as perceived RF health risks, greatly overblown. At least the knowledge level on this forum is more enlightened about RF dangers than the general internet crowd, it is comical so read some of their statements about 5G being Govt. population control, cancer causing, mind control or whatever. RF is not doing us any good that is fact, however we do not think it is harming anyone either.
I'd be more concerned about Google, Amazon and Facebook trying to control our thoughts and behavior than the government.
Elon Musk's Neuralink chip promises to merge the human brain with A.I. computers. Joy
Sent from our Pleadian star ship
I think you missed my point: Wireless isn't likely to make the US more competitive in the World markets. That our problem is communications is a red herring. Our problem is that our workforce spends too much time texting, following social media and shopping on their devices to accomplish anything resembling productivity. Wireless had a huge part making that happen and continues to foster these scourges to productivity.
