NASA, NOAA, and the Navy Tell The FCC Its 5G Plan Will Harm Weather Forecasting
from the ill-communication dept
The Ajit Pai FCC has pissed off yet another subset of the population still reliant on factual data.
Scientists and researchers at NASA, NOAA, and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have been warning that the wireless industry's use of select bands for 5G could interfere with transmissions of weather-satellite imagery. In a letter (pdf) sent to the FCC last month, warning that the industry's plan to use 24GHz band could severely hamper weather forecasting. The FCC recently auctioned off spectrum in this band for private companies, but a growing roster of scientists say precautions weren't taken first:
"NOAA and NASA have conducted studies that show interference in passive collection at the 23.6-24 GHz band from the adjacent 5G band (24.25 GHz); as such it is expected that interference will result in a partial-to-complete loss of remotely sensed water-vapor measurements. It is also expected that impacts will be concentrated in urban areas of the United States first."
More plainly, water vapor emits radiation at 23.8GHz. Both the NOAA and NASA say monitoring these vapors won't be possible if the neighboring band is too noisy. Things like hurricane forecasts, they say, could take up to two to three days longer if adequate protections aren't put in place. There's far more detail in this recent article in Nature, where academics note that while far more scientific study is needed, the interference potential here is a very real threat.
AT&T and other industry players recently gobbled up spectrum in the band at auction, and have an obvious vested interest in getting the spectrum in place quickly as they look to cash in on fifth generation wireless (5G). This being Ajit Pai, his response to the concerns has been to tell the NOAA, NASA, Navy, and AMS that they don't know what they're talking about. Senators have since pressed Pai to provide insight into exactly what his agency did to mitigate the potential harm:
"Explain and provide supporting documentation related to the FCC's public interest analysis, including any cost-benefit analysis, on the FCC's emissions limit. In particular, explain how the FCC addressed the costs to taxpayers from the loss of billions of dollars of investment in weather-sensing satellites, the costs to public safety and national security, and to the nation's commercial activities that rely on this critical weather data."
As if on cue, representatives of the "American Consumer Institute" (a non-profit pretending to be a consumer advocacy firm but actually backed by big telecom companies) has been pushing editorials trying to claim the problem doesn't actually exist either, and that the Navy, AMS, NASA, and NOAA are all somehow suffering from some form of scientific delusion. Meanwhile a separate but similar controversy has emerged over the FCC's plan for the 1675-1680MHz band. There too the American Geophysical Union (AGU), American Meteorological Society (AMS), Boeing, Accuweather, and National Weather Association (NWA) have all been warning the FCC that its spectrum sharing plan for that band could also cause forecasting problems.
It's yet another example of the discord created when you have a regulatory agency driven by ideology, alternative facts, and a blind fealty to big companies involved in overseeing issues that require nuance, objectivity, and at least a fleeting regard for science and data.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 5g, ams, fcc, interference, nasa, noaa, weather forecasting
Reader Comments
The First Word
“For more information on that, that band is used to allow anyone with a receiver to get realtime weather data from the GOES weather satellite system. Aviation, shipping logistics, environmental monitoring, disaster response all rely on these systems. All they need to run is a power source.
The main company pushing for the auction is calling itself Ligado, and wants that adjacent spectrum to run 5g IoT devices. They claim, agaominst evidence, that "there's no reason to be concerned" about interference with weather satellite transmissions.
While claiming there's no risk of interference, they also claim that the interference isn't their problem.
Ignoring the "eavesdropping on public information" stupidity, an internet-based system is absolutely not a valid solution. How often does the internet go down during a major natural disaster?
Ligado was formerly known as "LightSquared," the company that bought spectrum adjacent to GPS, similarly swore that there would definitely be no interference, proceeded to cause interference, and blamed the problem on the GPS receivers for obeying physics.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The fuck with science! We have consumers to screw over! - Telecoms
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Voters in FLA will not be pleased to find out how little our government cares.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It does not look like Pai has responded at all, but I think this comment from the linked Ars article says it best:
"I mean it isn't some libtard making this up. It is the friggin US Navy who considers weather forecasting to be pretty damn critical to doing their job."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Turns Out Mother Nature Isn’t So Bi-Polar After All
So that’s why my Weather App screws up from time to time? Forecast calls for screw-ups and 5Gs of t-bagging the American taxpayer, while FCC’s sucking the sausage of the corrupt practices of the 21st century.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
He has; here's a more recent Ars article: Ajit Pai says NOAA and NASA are wrong about 5G harming weather forecasts
It's about what you'd expect.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What we're missing is the long term plan the telcoms are putting into play here.
They want to get 5G up and rolling, and screw up forecasting.
They want more super storms to wipe out their copper lines & the FCC to give them a pass on having to rebuild.
They they will have everyone on cellular data & be able to rake in more profits than every before.
Whats a few more dead people when corporate profits are at stake?
I mean its not like there are rules that make sure landlines can still function during power outages for a period of time & that locating a landline when someone calls for help is much easier than hoping the cellphone can ping the GPS satellite through the 5G haze...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
While NASA, the Nava and NOAA have completely ligitmite arguments in the science arena: to they have a crediable reason to believe 5G device will actually be deployed in proximity to weather sensors (I mean: do they have credible evidence that teleco will ... build? ).
Of course that's not a reason to ignore their agument, but it's probably the most credible defense Pai could raise
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
He rushed through the auction knowing that studies would take time to complete, knowing what they would say, and then when they are finally done, he has the gall to call them "bad data" and promptly use bad data as part of his argument.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
They'll have to build anywhere there's a large group of customers, so cities and suburban areas WILL be saturated. That means you'll only get useful data from sensors in areas that the phone companies don't care about - the most rural of rural areas. But you need sensor data in inhabited areas, too. After all, that's where the weather will have the greatest affect.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
For more information on that, that band is used to allow anyone with a receiver to get realtime weather data from the GOES weather satellite system. Aviation, shipping logistics, environmental monitoring, disaster response all rely on these systems. All they need to run is a power source.
The main company pushing for the auction is calling itself Ligado, and wants that adjacent spectrum to run 5g IoT devices. They claim, agaominst evidence, that "there's no reason to be concerned" about interference with weather satellite transmissions.
While claiming there's no risk of interference, they also claim that the interference isn't their problem.
Ignoring the "eavesdropping on public information" stupidity, an internet-based system is absolutely not a valid solution. How often does the internet go down during a major natural disaster?
Ligado was formerly known as "LightSquared," the company that bought spectrum adjacent to GPS, similarly swore that there would definitely be no interference, proceeded to cause interference, and blamed the problem on the GPS receivers for obeying physics.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
"That means you'll only get useful data from sensors in areas that the phone companies don't care about"
That appears to be "everywhere", so perhaps it isn't such a big issue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
While I am loath to do this: I shall explain my remark, and destroy it's subtilties.
I was implying that telecos wont actually invent in deploying 5G on insignificat scale (because that will require spending money)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Space-based networks are great for desolate areas, but in cities it's not hard to add ground-based sensors. Would that help get around interference?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The sensors are up in orbit. It's the proximity to what they're sensing that's the problem. The satellites measure the very faint amounts of radiation that water vapor emits in order to measure the vapor content of the air. What Pai wants is to put high-power emitters (5G) next to the low-power emitter (vapor) and say everything will be fine because techomagic. It'll like trying to watch the flickering of a candle flame next to a car flashing its highbeams at you. Experts predict at least 77% data loss if Pai's sellout goes through as planned.
And it doesn't matter that 5G won't be deployed absolutely everywhere. Hurricane prediction relies on being able to monitor what the weather's doing on the land; weather systems that move west-to-east end up crossing and influencing the hurricane's track.
Blind the monitors over the US, and it becomes irrelevant that nobody put 5G over the ocean.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, not at all. Ground-based sensors are useful but they don't tell the whole picture, not even a significant portion of it. Satellite-based sensors provide a much broader view of weather systems and can help parse weather patterns for longer-range forecasting. Longer than a few hours that you're lucky to get from ground-based sensor data.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Things like hurricane forecasts, they say, could take up to two to three days longer if adequate protections aren't put in place."
If the sensors are in space and hurricanes form over oceans, I'm confused at how hurricane forecasts will be impacted.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The ephemeral elephant in the room
If transmissions in the 23.6-24 GHz are subject to interference from a band separated by 0.25 GHz why didn't NASA/NOAA secure a band from 23.35-24.25 GHz? Did they expect that the neighboring spectrum would remain unused forever?
Pai is a dick, for sure, and 5G is maybe the biggest boondoggle to come along in a generation but this seems like bad planning on NASA/NOAA's part. Not something they're known for. They also could have participated in the auction to lock down neighboring bands.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The data will be hard to collect and may take many attempts to get uncorrupted data.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Read the bottom of my reply to the other guy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The ephemeral elephant in the room
Yeah, sure, and it's the firefighters' fault Verizon throttled them.
:rolleyes:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The ephemeral elephant in the room
Technical detail: it's not transmission that NASA/NOAA/Navy are concerned about it's emissions.
The difference being transmissions are controlled (at the origin) by humans.
However we currently don't have the ablity to control the emission frequency of water vapor.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You'd combine the two. Space-based sensors would still work in the rural areas without 5G, and ground-based forecasting might be able to check the local atmosphere if the 5G towers aren't broadcasting upward.
It may not be enough, and then there's the cost of deployment (the FCC made a boatload of money from the spectrum auction but NASA and the NOAA didn't).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The ephemeral elephant in the room
Maybe because of power levels? It's possible NASA/NOAA don't need to stop all use of those frequencies, but only those at high power levels like 5G. Highly directional transmissions might be OK too. Traditionally it's been the FCC's role to avoid interfering with licensed users.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The ephemeral elephant in the room
You don't get "directional" any more than a streetlight is directional.
But NOAA says if the FCC were to just tighten limits on out-of-band leakage from the currently-required -20dB to -50dB, the problem would pretty much disappear. But that would cut into telco profits just too much for Pai's liking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The ephemeral elephant in the room
Those are the frequencies emitted by water vapour, and by measuring the emissions, satellite sensors can measure the water vapour in the atmosphere. If NSA/NOAA cannot use those frequencies because of interference, they cannot measure water vapour in the atmosphere, and weather forecasting becomes less accurate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What? Water vapor is illegally using spectrum near ours! How dare it? Call the FCC.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The ephemeral elephant in the room
If NASA/NOAA/Navy's use of their range of the spectrum conflicts with the proposed use of the 24.5 GHz range then it's not a matter of misbehaving. This problem is built into the specs for use of both ranges. Either the specs need to change to eliminate the "bleed" or the parties involved need to secure more range to prevent the "bleed".
None of this has anything to do with your nifty strawman, champ, but a valiant effort nonetheless.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
floridian snow days here we come!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The ephemeral elephant in the room
Ah, so this is a repeat of the GPS interference concern of a few years ago—nearby bands unavoidably interfering with each other—and of course LightSquared/Ligado are still involved.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The ephemeral elephant in the room
[Citation needed]
There's nothing to prevent a satellite from directing its transmission at a specific ground-based location, particularly with modern technology. What makes you think "you don't get directional"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The ephemeral elephant in the room
It's not the specs, it's what is being measured. See:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190701/07244842500/nasa-noaa-navy-tell-fcc-5g-plan-will-har m-weather-forecasting.shtml#c302
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not like the consumers have a choice
and you can buy from vendors not using that RF space.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The ephemeral elephant in the room
But that would cut into telco profits just too much for Pai's liking.
Which is to say 'at all', because to Pai anything that negatively impacts telco profits is too much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
'It's just a little wind and rain, what's the big deal?'
Things like hurricane forecasts, they say, could take up to two to three days longer if adequate protections aren't put in place.
No worries, I mean it's not like hurricanes are capable of massive levels of destruction and high potential for death, and a few days could be the difference between being able to evacuate an area so only property is destroyed versus not having enough warning leading do significant loss of life.
I gotta say, I'm almost impressed, albeit for all the wrong reasons. I've known Pai was an asshole with a complete indifference to the public and serving it for years now, but to raise that to the level of ignoring experts on a matter that could literally be the difference between life and death for thousands or tens of thousands of people because listening to them might impact telco profits...
I didn't think it was possible for my view of him to get any lower, but it would seem he went above and beyond in proving me wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MW bandwidth
Microwave bandwidth starts..
100mhz low power..
Ends
100ghz..
And they want to be in the upper end of this???
ANYONE?? want to place a device near their heads that is sending a Signal in EVERY DIRECTION...from 23-25ghz??
Do you want children??
Do you want a head ache for the next 6 months??
https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/2003-allochrt.pdf
NOPE, I aint going there...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The ephemeral elephant in the room
I was referring to the 5G transmitters, not the satellites. Specifically, Ajit Pai's technologically ignorant excuse:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The kicker? There's plenty of frequency bands that 25G isn't even needed at all. Countries smarter at this than the US are moving ahead just fine without sacrificing vital systems.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
And of the bands, it's probably the least-useful, because it's the one most heavily absorbed by water vapor.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The ephemeral elephant in the room
The article says "More plainly, water vapor emits radiation at 23.8GHz. Both the NOAA and NASA say monitoring these vapors won't be possible if the neighboring band is too noisy."
It's physics that determines this, not a frequency band that could be assigned.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, afterall what's a few days of prior notice that a hurricane is going to wipe you out ... no need to hurry as the traffic will not be so bad will it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
idk, will planes will need to fly out into weather to take measures?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The ephemeral elephant in the room
Sure, just change the spec and the problem goes away ... I dont think so tim.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
No problem, the telcos will just up the power output to overcome the loss of transmission in humid climates. It's all OK because hurricanes don't thrive in humid conditions, they thrive in hot & dry desert conditions. /S
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The problem is congress
The FCC is an invention of Congress and is a bipartisan mess. Psi deserves to be a target but the FCC is a bipartisan committee! The problem is regulatory capture and Congressmen who are paid off.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We don't (or I don't) know that losing a few days notice is the only way this can go. Maybe, instead, NASA and the NOAA are forced to spend some money to work around the interference. Maybe that amount is so ridiculous we should reject the 5G usage outright. One way or another, we definitely need a solution before letting the telcos create a public-safety problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I agree
5G is a Telco fraud! They should make good on their promises and commitments before being allowed if they don't then the subsidies and tax breaks which they have should be reclained. Like wise any band width that they bought and don't use!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because they are using a natural signal, the one generated by water vapour, they cannot do anything about interference, other that asking the interfering source to improve their system to avoid it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
If it means stopping those bastards from seeding the atmosphere with aluminum sulfides and barrium and God knows what else.. and boiling the ionosphere with HAARP and stopping them from dumping crap in the earth's oceans and bodies of fresh water from their tanker spraying jets then go 5g.. you go NOW.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The ephemeral elephant in the room
Once they crank up the cell tower power and boil every living brain cell on earth, IT WON'T FUCKING MATTER.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The point was that there are, in principle, other ways to measure water vapour. The question is whether any are practical. (If so, one expects the telcos would have mentioned it.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Satellites are remote sensing, and give the moisture measurement in a column of atmosphere, while other methods only measure the moisture of the air surrounding the sensor, which is effectively a point measurement. So, there is no replacement for the microwave measurement technique.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What other ways are you suggesting or are you simply hoping it is possible?
Sure, one could fly a plane into the storm to take measurements like we have been doing for some time, and as pointed out in articles written on the subject, that could potentially cost two days of prior notice.
Since they want to roll out 5G yesterday we have no time to dream about some futuristic solution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Pai said that "the assumptions that clearly underlay that study were so flawed as to make the study, in our view at least, meaningless. I mean all it had was those pesky, fact things, and they were mixed in with the scientific data that explained why there would be a problem.
I mean there was no cash flow analysis showing how the money would go from Carrier A to my pocket, or from Carrier B to my wallet. There were no appeals to irrelevant anecdotes ("think of the children" or a "war on weather") to glom onto and repeat endlessly.
Based on my standards, I think you can all see why this study was so flawed ("It didn't say what we wanted it to say" basically, so it's "bad data" for our purposes and we will just continue to repeat that no matter what).
Now all your bases are belonging to us... muahahaha
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Come on, just ask the water to "nerd harder" and I'm sure it can change the frequency at which it's vapor dissipates...
We just don't think the water is trying hard enough at this time...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The ephemeral elephant in the room
It would take more power and MUCH larger cell tower equipment than currently available to do that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The ironing is delicious
Wait, doesn't NOAA usually get the heads up on major rain events?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Maybe, instead, NASA and the NOAA are forced to spend some money to work around the interference"
What a silly response .... lets just waste more taxpayer resources because that is much easier than getting people to agree upon the more efficient and logical answer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The problem is congress
The problem is greedy know it all dumbasses that somehow got put in charge of shit they know nothing about and refuse to ask those who know better.
[ link to this | view in thread ]