[Submitted] G's Louise

[Verdant Haven]

A bit of context, for those who aren't aware. One of the radio frequencies that is ideal for high speed 5G mobile data (24.25GHz) is right next to the one used by weather satellites to detect water vapor in the air (23.8Ghz). Some governments have decided to go ahead and sell that slice of spectrum to mobile providers, with the upshot that there is a significant danger of completely undermining modern meteorology due to background interference from 5G networks.

[TITLE] G's Louise

[DESCRIPTION] The recent announcement of newly-developed 9G mobile data technology has resulted in as many fears as cheers, as meteorologists are claiming the radio frequencies it uses will interfere with the satellite signals used for weather forecasting across @@NAME@@.

[VALIDITY] Has space program, allows internet


[OPTION 1] "I hate to rain on your parade," frets meteorologist and avowed nephophile @@RANDOMNAME@@, "but water vapor is only detectable at 23.8GHz… the same frequency this new technology uses! We won't be able to see clouds with our satellites, or know where it's raining, or take any of the readings we need. Every cell tower and hotspot will show up as if it were a giant cloud! If they have to use a slightly less-than-ideal frequency until they invent something new, it's worth it to protect our science!"

[EFFECT 1] forecasts are accurate but nobody has the bandwidth to view them


[OPTION 2] "Gray skies are gonna clear up!" promises early-adopter and avowed technophile @@RANDOMNAME@@. "I've heard that at these high frequencies, the propagation range of the signal is quite short, and it's not like we need to install antennas in the middle of the oceans where storm systems develop. The fact is, I… err, I mean… everybody wants this tech! Just put some regulations in place that limit 9G use to populated areas, and we should get the best of both worlds, right?"

[EFFECT 2] popular sunny beaches always have a cloudy outlook


[OPTION 3] "We'll weather the weather whatever the weather, so long as we stay inside!" announces basement-dweller and avowed nyctophile @@RANDOMNAME@@. "This is just a stepping-stone to 10G and beyond, and with that kind of bandwidth, we can all just telecommute forever! Pump more money into the IT sector, and we can develop delivery drones, automated factories, and who knows what else! We'll never have to worry about going outside or facing the weather again!"

[EFFECT 3] children grow up believing the sun to be a myth


[OPTION 4] "Close the blinds!" hisses notorious scopophobe @@RANDOMNAME@@, pulling @@HIS@@ hood tight around @@HIS@@ face. "Data already moves plenty fast! Sometimes too fast, if you catch my drift. You know what this is? It's a system for emitting mind-control rays! Satellites, 9G, they work together to track people, and to force honest @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ like me to carry out the whims of the secret international cabal of the lizard people! Outlaw these fake advances!"

[EFFECT 4] activists are attempting to repeal Moore's Law

[TITLE] G's Louise

[DESCRIPTION] The recent announcement of newly-developed 9G mobile data technology has resulted in as many fears as cheers, as meteorologists are claiming the radio frequencies it uses will interfere with the satellite signals used for weather forecasting across @@NAME@@

[VALIDITY] Has space program, allows internet


[OPTION 1] "I hate to rain on your parade…" frets meteorologist and avowed nephophile @@RANDOMNAME@@, "but water vapor is only detectable at 23.8GHz… the same frequency this new technology uses! We won't be able to see the storms with our satellites, or know where it's raining, or take any of the readings we need. Every cell tower and hotspot will show up as if it were a giant cloud! Send this technology back to the drawing board, or we'll be back to predicting the weather by looking out the window!"

[EFFECT 1] forecasts are accurate but nobody has the bandwidth to view them


[OPTION 2] "Gray skies are gonna clear up!" promises early-adopter and avowed technophile @@RANDOMNAME@@. "I've heard that at these high frequencies, the propagation range of the signal is quite short, and it's not like we need to install antennas in the middle of the oceans where storm systems develop, right? Just put some regulations in place that limit 9G use to populated areas, and we'll probably… err… definitely, get the best of both worlds!"

[EFFECT 2] popular sunny beaches always have a cloudy outlook


[OPTION 3] We'll weather the weather whatever the weather, so long as we stay inside!" announces basement-dweller and avowed nyctophile @@RANDOMNAME@@. "This is just a stepping-stone to 10G and beyond, and with that kind of bandwidth, we can all just telecommute forever! Pump more money into the IT sector, and we can develop delivery drones, automated factories, and who knows what else! We'll never have to worry about going outside or facing the weather again!"

[EFFECT 3] children grow up believing the sun to be a myth


[OPTION 4] "Close the blinds!" hisses notorious scopophobe @@RANDOMNAME@@, pulling @@HIS@@ hood tight around @@HIS@@ face. "Don't look at me! The satellites, the 9G, and all this so-called 'technology' is nothing but a system for emitting mind-control rays! They work together to track people, and to force honest @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ like me to carry out the whims of the secret international cabal of the lizard people! Outlaw this technology! Defund the satellites! Ban governmental collection of data of any kind!"

[EFFECT 4] the government responds to every inquiry with a resounding shrug

[TITLE] G's Louise

[DESCRIPTION] The recent announcement of the newly-developed 9G mobile network has resulted in as many fears as cheers, as meteorologists are claiming it will interfere with the satellite signals used for weather forecasting across @@NAME@@

[VALIDITY] Has space program, allows internet


[OPTION 1] "I hate to rain on your parade, but this is bad" frets meteorologist and avowed nephophile @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Water vapor is detectable right at the same frequency as this new network. If it goes into operation, we won't be able to see the clouds with our satellites, or know where it's raining, or take any of the readings we need. Prohibit this technology at once, or we'll be back to predicting the weather by looking out the window!"

[EFFECT 1] forecasts are accurate but nobody has the bandwidth to view them


[OPTION 2] "Gray skies are gonna clear up!" promises early-adopter and avowed technophile @@RANDOMNAME@@. "At these high frequencies, the propagation range of the signal is quite short, and it's not like we need to install antennas in the middle of the oceans where storm systems develop, right? Just put some regulations in place that limit 9G use to populated areas, and we'll get the best of both worlds!"

[EFFECT 2] fish and wildlife don't seem to appreciate the accuracy of their local weather predictions


[OPTION 3] We'll weather the weather whatever the weather, so long as we stay inside!" announces basement-dweller and avowed nyctophile @@RANDOMNAME@@. "This is just a stepping-stone to 10G and beyond, and with that kind of bandwidth, we can all just telecommute forever! Pump more money into the IT sector, and we can develop delivery drones, automated factories, and who knows what else! We'll never have to worry about going outside or facing the weather again. Now close the blinds!"

[EFFECT 3] children grow up believing the sun to be a myth

[Trotterdam]

So, I get why weather satellites need to use a specific frequency, but why are communications satellites so picky about what frequency they use?

[Verdant Haven]

So, I get why weather satellites need to use a specific frequency, but why are communications satellites so picky about what frequency they use?

It's not actually communication satellites that are the problem - it's ground-based antennas and transmitters on/for cell phones and mobile devices.

Now, I'm not telecommunications engineer, but my understanding of specifically why this wavelength is a point of contention is that it's right at the base of the millimeter-wave frequency spectrum. The higher you go, the less effective your signal is at covering distances, penetrating walls, and otherwise giving you a good "network," but if you go lower than this you start to fall out of the sweet mmWave area that provides the massive bandwidth 5G promises to provide. As a result, it is the single most efficient point for current technology to produce high bandwidth combined with acceptable coverage.

Unfortunately, and by sheer coincidence, this is also right on the frequency where atmospheric water vapor produces a signal. If the electronic background puts even a very small about of "noise" in this frequency (which 5G will), it will blind satellites to the weak water vapor signal on which they rely.

[Verdant Haven]

Alright - I've got several of the others I've been working on submitted, so I'm bringing this one back to the top of my in-progress pile!

2nd draft up:

- Fleshed out option 1 to provide a heck of a lot more context for the issue, since many people might not be familiar with the problem
- Tweaked option 2 to make it more apparent that it's not actually a "best of both worlds" solution
- Added an option 4 to reflect the widely known stupidity on the subject of 5G being some kind of mind-control tracking device, and to fully flesh-out the option spectrum

[Honeydewistania]

There should be a full stop at the end of the description. Also I don’t see how banning government surveillance is an appropriate solution to the issue, I think just outlawing the technology is extreme enough and suitable

[Electrum]

Typically speaking, it's international agencies that create technical standards as to how new technologies will operate (in real life, this is the ITU). They handle the allocation of frequencies -- it's not something that's done on the national level, given the requirement for consistent standards across the world.

[Australian rePublic]

You can just call it 5G, it's fine, 5G's not a brand name

[Honeydewistania]

You can just call it 5G, it's fine, 5G's not a brand name

Sure, but in a few years time 5G might be considered old/obsolete and this’ll be confusing

[Australian rePublic]

You can just call it 5G, it's fine, 5G's not a brand name

Sure, but in a few years time 5G might be considered old/obsolete and this’ll be confusing

Soon 9G will be obsolete too. I genuinely don't know what to do about that

[Honeydewistania]

Sure, but in a few years time 5G might be considered old/obsolete and this’ll be confusing

Soon 9G will be obsolete too. I genuinely don't know what to do about that

True, but that’ll be in decades most likely

[Trotterdam]

∞G? If this is really the ideal frequency, people are going to want to use it for every generation to come

I guess this discussion of generation numbers makes me ask: if this point is so valuable, why aren't previous generations using it already? My experience is that people have no problem tapping away on the phone with current technology, so whatever frequency current generations are using is clearly adequate for most everyday purposes.

[Verdant Haven]

There should be a full stop at the end of the description. Also I don’t see how banning government surveillance is an appropriate solution to the issue, I think just outlawing the technology is extreme enough and suitable

Thanks! I'll edit in the stop.

My angle with that speaker was more a jab at the idiot 5G conspiracy theorists who claim everything from mind control to the implanting of tracking chips, but maybe it did go a bit far for this issue! It would genuinely destroy most other issues to implement such a policy, since you couldn't even count how many children attend a school, or what you're paying your employees, if you can't gather any data. I'll step the suggestion back in the next draft.

Typically speaking, it's international agencies that create technical standards as to how new technologies will operate (in real life, this is the ITU). They handle the allocation of frequencies -- it's not something that's done on the national level, given the requirement for consistent standards across the world.

In the real world they do, though the individual participant nations do have loud voices in it, and the real world doesn't have multi-billion person autarkies that will cry if an issue suggests they spoke to a foreign power! In the particular case of 5G, the real world national positions were more specifically about the permissible decibel watt rating of the "noise buffer" on the frequency in order to avoid interference, but I'm concerned that that's a bit overly-technical for use in an issue (valuable word-space would have to be burned explaining wtf is being discussed, whereas pretty much everybody understands the concept of radio frequencies). Since individual nations do still regulate the allocation and usage of radio frequencies within their borders, I feel like we could reasonably get away with this as an extension of that function.

You can just call it 5G, it's fine, 5G's not a brand name

Sure, but in a few years time 5G might be considered old/obsolete and this’ll be confusing

Agreed - this is mostly where I'm coming from. It's a recognizable real-world analogue, but not so precise as to exactly replicate something that will likely be obscure immediately. The day will come, but not quite yet.

∞G? If this is really the ideal frequency, people are going to want to use it for every generation to come

I guess this discussion of generation numbers makes me ask: if this point is so valuable, why aren't previous generations using it already? My experience is that people have no problem tapping away on the phone with current technology, so whatever frequency current generations are using is clearly adequate for most everyday purposes.

Basically it all comes down to cost. This frequency is ideal for currently available technologies that can be manufactured at acceptable price points.

The other side of the data speed calculation is asking how fast can the processor on a device actually handle incoming information and put it to use. Faster processors fitting in smaller spaces (both speed and miniaturization being functions of time and generational development) means you can handle more incoming data. For example, when I went off to college, my entire university had a single T1 line for a couple thousand students. It's now not uncommon for a single home internet connection to be 100 times that speed. Similarly however, my current CPU is also more than 100 times more powerful than what I had then. As mobile devices continue to improve in power, so too will their ability to handle larger data speeds. Along with that will go a shift in which frequencies are most desirable to obtain that speed. Accepting a slightly less ideal frequency/speed for now will be a temporary inconvenience, and in the future will no longer be relevant. The frequency at which water vapor is detectable will not change however - it is a constant that can be (and some would say should be) worked around.

[Verdant Haven]

3rd draft is up!

- Significantly changed Option 4, in order to limit the proposed ban and consequences to only the relevant technology.
- Replaced Effect 4 accordingly.
- Modified Option 1 to provide a clearer distinction between it and the new version of Option 4.
- Tweaked Option 2 again.

[Verdant Haven]

Any further feedback on this draft before I push to final call?

[Terrabod]

[OPTION 3] "We'll weather the weather whatever the weather, so long as we stay inside!" announces basement-dweller and avowed nyctophile @@RANDOMNAME@@.

Yarr missing an inverted comma.

I also have to raise the issue of your use of ellipsis - is it appropriate in all cases? Remember that it's used to show that the speaker is trailing off, or implying that something has been left unsaid, or in place of a deliberate period of silence.

[OPTION 1] "I hate to rain on your parade…" frets meteorologist and avowed nephophile @@RANDOMNAME@@, "but water vapor is only detectable at 23.8GHz… the same frequency this new technology uses! We won't be able to see clouds with our satellites, or know where it's raining, or take any of the readings we need. Every cell tower and hotspot will show up as if it were a giant cloud! If they have to use a slightly less-than-ideal frequency until they invent something new, it's worth it to protect our science!"

Would a comma be better in the first instance here? The second use might be ok, but a dash might be more appropriate since the speaker is expanding on their point - unless they are deliberately pausing for dramatic effect.

[OPTION 2] "Gray skies are gonna clear up!" promises early-adopter and avowed technophile @@RANDOMNAME@@. "I've heard that at these high frequencies, the propagation range of the signal is quite short, and it's not like we need to install antennas in the middle of the oceans where storm systems develop. The fact is, I… err, I mean… everybody wants this tech! Just put some regulations in place that limit 9G use to populated areas, and we should get the best of both worlds, right?"

I think dashes should be used here to show that the speaker is interrupting themselves, because ellipses disrupt the intensity here.

[OPTION 4] "Close the blinds!" hisses notorious scopophobe @@RANDOMNAME@@, pulling @@HIS@@ hood tight around @@HIS@@ face. "Data already moves plenty fast! Sometimes too fast, if you catch my drift. You know what this is? It's a system for emitting mind-control rays! Satellites, 9G… they work together to track people, and to force honest @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ like me to carry out the whims of the secret international cabal of the lizard people! Outlaw these fake advances!"

A dash might work better here. This speaker is so emotional that I can't picture them trailing off mid-sentence.

[Verdant Haven]

Alright, moving to Final Call!

I didn't increment the draft, but I did add the missing quote and removed the ellipses in Options 1 and 4 - thank you for that! I'm keeping them in Option 2, as they can serve as suspension points as well as trail offs - in this context, the person catching themselves giving away more than they wanted and hesitating to correct their statement.

[Terrabod]

but I did add the missing quote

No you didn't, you mad cow!

[Verdant Haven]

but I did add the missing quote

No you didn't, you mad cow!

Shh, nuh-uhh! I totally did! It's there, I promise! See?

(Oops)

[Australian rePublic]

Is this an issue in real life? What do real countries do?

[Verdant Haven]

Is this an issue in real life? What do real countries do?

Indeed it is! It's a global problem, and has caused a great deal of stress and gnashing of teeth amongst meteorologists. The end result so far, that I am aware of, has been years of diplomatic negotiations leading to an agreement or treaty of some kind that specifically limits the bands that can be used for 5G, to try and limit the impact on weather satellites. The restrictions are not tight enough to avoid some problems, but should at least prevent complete black-out.