Sunday, June 26, 2022 00:34
> *To:* Mike Hammett
> *Cc:* nanog@nanog.org
> *Subject:* Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?
>
>
>
> Mike Hammett wrote on 6/24/2022 1:22 PM:
>
>
> It's DirecTV that became part of AT, but now they're separated again.
>
> D
.
From: NANOG On Behalf Of
blakan...@gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2022 00:34
To: Mike Hammett
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?
Mike Hammett wrote on 6/24/2022 1:22 PM:
It's DirecTV that became part of AT, but now they're separated again.
Dish Network
swisp><https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
*From: *"Owen DeLong via NANOG"
*To: *"Michael Thomas"
*Cc: *nanog@nanog.org
*Sent: *Friday, June 24, 2022 3:14:33 PM
*Subject: *R
gt;
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> --
> *From: *"Owen DeLong via NANOG&quo
Message -
From: "Owen DeLong via NANOG"
To: "Michael Thomas"
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2022 3:14:33 PM
Subject: Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?
On Jun 24, 2022, at 13:12 , Michael Thomas < m...@mtcc.com > wrote:
On 6/2
> On Jun 24, 2022, at 13:12 , Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>
> On 6/24/22 12:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 24, 2022, at 12:33 , Michael Thomas wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/24/22 9:09 AM, Chris Wright wrote:
The term "5G" among technical circles started vague, became better defined
On 6/24/22 12:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jun 24, 2022, at 12:33 , Michael Thomas wrote:
On 6/24/22 9:09 AM, Chris Wright wrote:
The term "5G" among technical circles started vague, became better defined over
the course of several years, and is becoming vague again. This nuance was
On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 12:38 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> Frankly, I really don’t think that Dish’s idea of providing 5G mobile service
> from satellites is a particularly good or beneficial one and granting them
> 12Ghz spectrum for this purpose is probably not really in the public
> On Jun 24, 2022, at 3:38 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>
> It’s not entirely clear, without knowing the technical details of the
> Starlink modulation scheme whether or not they could successfully share the
> 12Ghz spectrum.
>
> I have no reason to disbelieve their claims.
Exactly.
> On Jun 24, 2022, at 12:33 , Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>
> On 6/24/22 9:09 AM, Chris Wright wrote:
>> The term "5G" among technical circles started vague, became better defined
>> over the course of several years, and is becoming vague again. This nuance
>> was never well understood in the
On 6/24/22 9:09 AM, Chris Wright wrote:
The term "5G" among technical circles started vague, became better defined over
the course of several years, and is becoming vague again. This nuance was never well
understood in the public eye, nor by mass publications like CNN. This is a battle for
On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 9:09 AM Chris Wright
wrote:
> This is a battle for 12GHz, not 5G.
It's a battle to use 12Ghz for 5G cell phone tech instead of the
satellite tech it was allocated for. You could drop the 5G from that
sentence and still be correct but nobody has proposed using 4G or
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?
>
> It appears that Eric Kuhnke said:
> >Adding a terrestrial transmitter source mounted on towers and with CPEs
> >that stomps on the same frequencies as the last 20 years of existing
> >two wa
--Original Message-
From: NANOG On
Behalf Of John Levine
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 9:45 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?
It appears that Eric Kuhnke said:
>Adding a terrestrial transmitter source mounted on towers and with CPEs
>that st
I use Comcast Business for my primary at home, but it is so bad that I was
forced to get Starlink as backup. I am not in a city, but close enough that
there would be issues.
><>
nathan stratton
On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 9:47 PM John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Eric Kuhnke said:
> >Adding a
It appears that Eric Kuhnke said:
>Adding a terrestrial transmitter source mounted on towers and with CPEs
>that stomps on the same frequencies as the last 20 years of existing two
>way VSAT terminals throughout the US seems like a bad idea. Even if you
>ignore the existence of Starlink, there's
Pretty much, with the addition that 10900 MHz to 12700 MHz has for a very
long time been historically reserved for Ku-band one-way and two-way
satellite data services talking to geostationary satellites.
The only thing that SpaceX is doing new here is talking to moving LEO
satellites with their
On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 3:12 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
> https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/tech/spacex-dish-fcc-spectrum-scn/index.html
The article is super light on technical detail but I think what
they're saying is:
The 12ghz spectrum has been allocated to satellite services which have
very low
18 matches
Mail list logo
