6 ms·

I worked very very briefly in the wireless service industry on UAPs and large scale cell antenna receivers. To me, this doesn't seem as much a conspiracy to obs

I worked very very briefly in the wireless service industry on UAPs and large scale cell antenna receivers. To me, this doesn't seem as much a conspiracy to obsolete old phones as a practical stance to not need to have two copies of antennas on every tower. The old antennas used in 3G don't go up to the frequencies needed by true 5G, so they need new ones. If they're developing new ones, they don't want to have to keep supporting old standards as well, so they don't code for it (and possibly don't even support it in the hardware). So now there are no more 3G receivers on any towers and therefore your 3G phone stops working. As a side effect, anyone still using a 3G device needs to buy a new one, but I don't think that is the main driver for the move.

dathinab 5y ago
I think it's also about: - later recycling frequencies - reducing maintenance burden (by not maintaining 3G) - as far as I remember 3G as serious security vulnerabilities Also most smart phones only a lifetime of 3-5 years at most, and even then people tend to replace them early due to braking them and for vanity. So there are probably not too many smart phones around which do not support 4G and which are not a security liability. Through probably a bunch of fallback feature phones or other "less common" (then smartphones) kinds of phones. Also it differs by country.
- CountSessine 5y ago
  later recycling frequencies Yeah this is what I would think. My understanding is that in North America a lot of plum 800MHz bands are currently occupied by 3G umts. edit - yes, both Verizon and AT&T are dedicating a single band of 850MHz spectrum for umts. So this would let them move that to 4G or 5G.
KronisLV 5y ago
> As a side effect, anyone still using a 3G device needs to buy a new one, but I don't think that is the main driver for the move. Despite the positives, this feels kind of sad. If you look at software, many of the older browsers out there can't even open simple modern webpages. After years, i grow weary of the churn, i've gone from Windows 98 to Windows 10 now, through numerous versions of Debian/Ubuntu and CentOS/Fedora, From Android 2.1 all the way to 10 currently. I have had software and even hardware be ripped out of my hands every few years, because someone decided to change something and deprecate the older stuff. But what is the alternative? Use old and sadly insecure hardware/software? Or keep up with everything and partake in more consumerism than i should? Just some musings on the topic, because watching Bryan Lunduke talk about old computers from another time when not everything old was considered "vulnerable" and "a risk" (due to not having much network capability at all) was interesting and enjoyable. I wonder what i'll be working with in 20 years and whether the older Debian and Windows XP versions will still hold a place in my heart.
- nradov 5y ago
  Cell phones and mobile devices in general have always been disposable items with limited expected lifespans. Instead of worrying about keeping obsolete devices working we should focus on clean disposal and recycling that minimizes waste and pollution.
  - reaperducer 5y ago
    Cell phones and mobile devices in general have always been disposable items Only if you define "always" as post-2010. Cell phones were for a very long time considered long-term purchases, along the lines of washing machines and refrigerators. It was only when they became fashion accessories and certain companies started relying on pushing out new models every year for no reason other than to boost the balance sheet that they became "disposable." You're right about the recycling, though. We need more places to recycle e-waste. I was surprised a couple of years ago when I wanted to recycle an old PowerBook. I assumed that every Apple Store would take used gear. But it turned out that none of the Apple Stores near me would take it. I'd have to drive it four hours away to another city in order for it to be recycled.
    - nradov 5y ago
      That's simply wrong. In the US at least, prior to 2010 cell phones were typically replaced about every 3 years. The Motorola Razr flip phone was absolutely a fashion accessory in 2004; watch some music videos from that era. Motorola and other brands did push out new models every year.
      - reaperducer 5y ago
        I'm not "simply wrong." I just has a cell phone long before you did.
        nradov 5y ago
        So you're describing your own behavior, not the typical consumer. I'm on my 10th cell phone since 1996. Most other consumers are about the same.
anthomtb 5y ago
Something here doesn’t make sense to me. The retired 3G spectrum will be used for 4G and 5G (per the FCC article) so the antennas could be reused as the carrier frequency will not change. For a concrete example, if you’re running 3G at 900 MHz, why would running 5G at 900 MHz require a different antenna? On that note, saying the antennas don’t go up to true 5G frequencies is a bit…misleading? Because while the frequency goes up, the wavelength goes down so the antenna should shrink.
- rubylark 5y ago
  That's fair. Unfortunately I don't know the specifics of the hardware involved, and I wasn't there long enough to get a good understanding. I hope someone with more knowledge or industry experience can chime in. All I know that the company I worked for sold a completely new antenna assembly that supported 5G and that our customers were moving to using those antennas. As far as the size, all of the units we sold have been approximately the same size for quite a while. E.g. all the chasses varied by maybe 6-10" max between the old assemblies and the new. The new ones were larger (maybe more room for power electronics?) I don't know if there was any effort on our part to support 5G transition without replacing our antennas. Edit: I believe we were pushing new hardware because the services wanted to utilize the high frequency band of FR2 24-56Gz [1] (what I meant by "true 5G") that our old antenna assemblies couldn't support. I assume they couldn't support it because they weren't optimized for those bands at a high enough fidelity for good data transmission. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G#Frequency_range_2_(24%E2%80%9354_GHz) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G#Frequency_range_2_(24%E2%80...
  - darksaints 5y ago
    The FR2 hardware requires phased array antennaes for beamforming capability. While it technically could be used without beamforming, it would be extremely inefficient and have even less range than their already limited range. And those MIMO phased array antennaes are crazy expensive...it's still a technology with several active patent encumbrances.
- darksaints 5y ago
  Antennaes can be reused, but radio units and baseband units cannot, and those are by far more expensive. For example, a C-band array of radio units and baseband unit can cost upwards of $80k, while the antennae are a few thousand at most.

dathinab 5y ago

I think it's also about: - later recycling frequencies - reducing maintenance burden (by not maintaining 3G) - as far as I remember 3G as serious security vulnerabilities Also most smart phones only a lifetime of 3-5 years at most, and even then people tend to replace them early due to braking them and for vanity. So there are probably not too many smart phones around which do not support 4G and which are not a security liability. Through probably a bunch of fallback feature phones or other "less common" (then smartphones) kinds of phones. Also it differs by country.

CountSessine 5y ago
later recycling frequencies Yeah this is what I would think. My understanding is that in North America a lot of plum 800MHz bands are currently occupied by 3G umts. edit - yes, both Verizon and AT&T are dedicating a single band of 850MHz spectrum for umts. So this would let them move that to 4G or 5G.

KronisLV 5y ago

> As a side effect, anyone still using a 3G device needs to buy a new one, but I don't think that is the main driver for the move. Despite the positives, this feels kind of sad. If you look at software, many of the older browsers out there can't even open simple modern webpages. After years, i grow weary of the churn, i've gone from Windows 98 to Windows 10 now, through numerous versions of Debian/Ubuntu and CentOS/Fedora, From Android 2.1 all the way to 10 currently. I have had software and even hardware be ripped out of my hands every few years, because someone decided to change something and deprecate the older stuff. But what is the alternative? Use old and sadly insecure hardware/software? Or keep up with everything and partake in more consumerism than i should? Just some musings on the topic, because watching Bryan Lunduke talk about old computers from another time when not everything old was considered "vulnerable" and "a risk" (due to not having much network capability at all) was interesting and enjoyable. I wonder what i'll be working with in 20 years and whether the older Debian and Windows XP versions will still hold a place in my heart.

nradov 5y ago
Cell phones and mobile devices in general have always been disposable items with limited expected lifespans. Instead of worrying about keeping obsolete devices working we should focus on clean disposal and recycling that minimizes waste and pollution.
- reaperducer 5y ago
  Cell phones and mobile devices in general have always been disposable items Only if you define "always" as post-2010. Cell phones were for a very long time considered long-term purchases, along the lines of washing machines and refrigerators. It was only when they became fashion accessories and certain companies started relying on pushing out new models every year for no reason other than to boost the balance sheet that they became "disposable." You're right about the recycling, though. We need more places to recycle e-waste. I was surprised a couple of years ago when I wanted to recycle an old PowerBook. I assumed that every Apple Store would take used gear. But it turned out that none of the Apple Stores near me would take it. I'd have to drive it four hours away to another city in order for it to be recycled.
  - nradov 5y ago
    That's simply wrong. In the US at least, prior to 2010 cell phones were typically replaced about every 3 years. The Motorola Razr flip phone was absolutely a fashion accessory in 2004; watch some music videos from that era. Motorola and other brands did push out new models every year.
    - reaperducer 5y ago
      I'm not "simply wrong." I just has a cell phone long before you did.
      - nradov 5y ago
        So you're describing your own behavior, not the typical consumer. I'm on my 10th cell phone since 1996. Most other consumers are about the same.

anthomtb 5y ago

Something here doesn’t make sense to me. The retired 3G spectrum will be used for 4G and 5G (per the FCC article) so the antennas could be reused as the carrier frequency will not change. For a concrete example, if you’re running 3G at 900 MHz, why would running 5G at 900 MHz require a different antenna? On that note, saying the antennas don’t go up to true 5G frequencies is a bit…misleading? Because while the frequency goes up, the wavelength goes down so the antenna should shrink.

rubylark 5y ago
That's fair. Unfortunately I don't know the specifics of the hardware involved, and I wasn't there long enough to get a good understanding. I hope someone with more knowledge or industry experience can chime in. All I know that the company I worked for sold a completely new antenna assembly that supported 5G and that our customers were moving to using those antennas. As far as the size, all of the units we sold have been approximately the same size for quite a while. E.g. all the chasses varied by maybe 6-10" max between the old assemblies and the new. The new ones were larger (maybe more room for power electronics?) I don't know if there was any effort on our part to support 5G transition without replacing our antennas. Edit: I believe we were pushing new hardware because the services wanted to utilize the high frequency band of FR2 24-56Gz [1] (what I meant by "true 5G") that our old antenna assemblies couldn't support. I assume they couldn't support it because they weren't optimized for those bands at a high enough fidelity for good data transmission. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G#Frequency_range_2_(24%E2%80%9354_GHz) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G#Frequency_range_2_(24%E2%80...
- darksaints 5y ago
  The FR2 hardware requires phased array antennaes for beamforming capability. While it technically could be used without beamforming, it would be extremely inefficient and have even less range than their already limited range. And those MIMO phased array antennaes are crazy expensive...it's still a technology with several active patent encumbrances.
darksaints 5y ago
Antennaes can be reused, but radio units and baseband units cannot, and those are by far more expensive. For example, a C-band array of radio units and baseband unit can cost upwards of $80k, while the antennae are a few thousand at most.