High band internet just isn't very practical as a replacement for wired internet in most of the country, but everyone wants ignore our broadband infrastructure issues because 5g will save us.
The military owns that part of the wireless spectrum. The DoD did a study which said the military should cede control of it for that reason. This is one of the main reasons the US hasn't adopted 5G in the “sub-6” space (3 and 4 GHz bands primarily).<p>The strategic problem is that the US will be fundamentally different from the rest of the world, basically ceding 5G ownership to China. No one will want to go along with our broken 5g spectrum adoption and the US will find it hard to get cheap components. Along with a host of other issues like national security, integration with other nations etc.<p><a href="https://media.defense.gov/2019/Apr/04/2002109654/-1/-1/0/DIB_5G_STUDY_04.04.19.PDF" rel="nofollow">https://media.defense.gov/2019/Apr/04/2002109654/-1/-1/0/DIB...</a><p>One thing this opinion article got wrong is the US govt is trying to make more spectrum available via a plan called 5G FAST. So it's not like the problem is being entirely ignored. There are plans to open up huge blocks of the spectrum to companies.<p><a href="https://www.fcc.gov/5G" rel="nofollow">https://www.fcc.gov/5G</a><p>It is likely that the future of 5G in the US is a mix of spectrum, some providing the ultra fast connections for urban areas and mid range spectrum for more spread out areas. But it's looking like we will surely lose the race to become a leader in that space.
> The United States, however, has made zero mid-band spectrum available at auction for the 5G economy.<p>This is simply not true. Being an employee of Dish at the time, I happen to know that Dish spent over a billion dollars buying spectrum in the 600 Mhz (low-mid) range in 2018 and they were told they must monetize the spectrum by 2020 if they wish to keep it. Dish has a strong hold on rural America and is definitely keeping them in mind when it comes to 5G.
>They are also not penetrating walls or windows, making indoor coverage difficult.<p>Not even windows? That's just straight up bizarre. I foresee a frustrating future of a billion small blind spots ahead for our American friends. Sorry guys.<p>Fast internet is cool. Fast patchy internet is not.
I'm actually quite happy with 4G. I can't watch 4k streaming videos on my phone... Which I don't want to do anyways. I don't think we actually need another iteration.
Going with millimeter wavelength in cell signals could result in some interesting ancillary uses. Reminded me of this: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQm_7aPjBUM" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQm_7aPjBUM</a>
This article is strange enough that I suspect astroturfing.<p>The reason 5G is being deployed in 24GHz is because we don’t have wide enough blocks elsewhere. The 800MHz and 1.9 GHz spectrums have existing services cellular services, and putting 5G there would have to block off spectrum that would otherwise be used by older technologies. This would increase congestion for existing users while very few people would be on 5G.<p>Unlike other countries, US govt does not force phase out of services—we still have 2G service in many parts of the rural us, and cell companies aren’t going to upgrade them voluntarily.<p>Eventually most of the handsets would be compatible with 5G, then 800MHz-2GHz bands will be converted over to 5G. This happened with LTE and 3G before that.<p>Maybe this article is being pushed by telcos, who wants the current TV frequency reallocated to them. Of course the broadcasters want to hang on to those to provide 4K TV over the air service.