On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 18:16:01 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

So far, there hasn't been serious consideration for publicly
owned (or built) 5th generation telephone service.

Worse. It's been shot down by our Fearless Leader:
"Trump says he opposes nationalizing U.S. 5G network"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-wireless-trump/trump-says-he-opposes-nationalizing-u-s-5g-network-idUSKCN1RO1WC

The
shareholders[1] of the various providers/networks/operators
have been willing to invest and they will either make or
lose money. Like I care.

You should care. If they lose money, or give the appearance of losing
money, the government will surely apply the necessary corporate
welfare to insure that they lose less money. The magic buzzwords are
"rural broadband", which is FCC and congressional lingo for
subsidizing the cellular providers:
"A Team of Researchers Just Showed How the FCC Wastes Billions on
Rural Broadband"
https://www.insidesources.com/a-team-of-researchers-just-showed-how-the-fcc-wastes-billions-on-rural-broadband/
To the best of my knowledge, the only government money spent
specifically for 5G is about $100 million/year by the NSF (National
Science Fiasco)
"Advanced Wireless Research @ NSF"
https://www.nsf.gov/cise/advancedwireless/
"17 Companies Receive NSF Funding for 5G Services" (from 2016)
https://www.rrmediagroup.com/News/NewsDetails/NewsID/14475

European seems to have their governments invest in 5G:
"Public funding of 5G R&D, including trials"
https://5gobservatory.eu/public-initiatives/public-funding-of-5g-rd-including-trials/

Big misunderstandings abound after spectrum allocation
(which has become an exemplar of dirty politics).

The term is "5G Hype". The problem isn't the hype, lies, distortions,
and general lack of sanity. It's the various articles and YouTube
videos claiming to clarify the situation by adding additional hype.

The fast
download protocols of 5G are not well suited to the current
tower systems[2]. Comparable coverage would require some
large increment of the present number of towers/repeaters.
That is unlikely. More probably urban areas will rely more
on WiFi fed by fiber and other pipes with lower coverage
density as one leaves densely populated areas - just like
now but a sharper curve to non-service.

I presume you're talking about the 24-38GHz mmWave frequencies. Using
the rather hastily thrown together hardware available at trade shows,
the usable range is about 1500 ft. That puts the 5G small cell poles
about 3000 ft apart, or about 4 poles per square mile. However, that
assume line of sight with no obstructions. My guess(tm) is more like
9 poles per square mile. For example, the City of Portland OR is 145
square miles, which would require at least 1,350 5G poles to cover.
I'll round up to 1500 poles.

However, the number of poles is not the problem. It's the backhaul
from the poles to various hubs and exchange points that's the real
problem. If 5G is going to deliver very low latency and gigabit
bandwidth, then the backhaul must be fiber optic run some form of DWDM
(Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing) to allow daisy chaining).
Making that work is where much of the research money is currently
being spent. DWDM hardware is very expensive. For example, the cost
of urban dark fiber is about $400 - $1,000 /mile/month.

Do you know about a serious proposal to make a government
built or operated network?

"Here's What You Need To Know About That 'Nationalized 5G' Proposal"
http://fortune.com/2018/01/30/national-security-council-nationalized-5g-proposal/

"FCC Creates $20 Billion Rural Broadband Fund"
https://www.nextgov.com/emerging-tech/2019/04/fcc-creates-20-billion-rural-broadband-fund/156307/
Note the tag line "rural broadband", which should offer a clue as to
how the money will be spent and how much good it will do.

None of the telecoms like the idea of a government run 5G network,
even though they're the likely candidates for building such a network.
Oddly, the winning contractor would likely have included AT&T[1],
which is currently in the process of laying everyone off and
outsourcing everything to contractors:
"Trump administration's idea for government-built 5G network met with
loud resistance from U.S. telecoms"
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2018/01/29/trump-administration-considering-government-takeover-5-g-network-report-says/1074159001/

So, what duz this have to do with cycling and political blocs?
Probably nothing. There's far more political and financial pressure
behind 5G than there ever will be for cycling infrastructure. Worse,
I can't think of a way to improve the situation for cycling. Methinks
the best that can be done is to sell the cycling vote to the highest
bidder, and take whatever crumbs they can offer if elected.


[1] AT&T is currently building and managing the national first
responder radio network (FirstNet):
https://about.att.com/story/2019/fn_expands_coverage.html
https://www.firstnet.com
--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558