Good point, @Bert22306. When I heard '5 GHz' I was only thinking of the ISM band there and what damage a carrier would do in it. It does make more sense that they would license other spectrum around it. Thanks for the link to the FCC presentation, BTW. It was interesting.
The FCC only licenses frequency bands up to 3700 MHz, but it seems to me pretty obvious that this will have to change over time. As it has had to change in the past.
In order to increase RF channel capacity, ultimately one has to go up in frequency. It has always been thus. Can't do very much FM if you're restricted to LW, MW, or SW. Can't do much TV either. So, to guarantee interference-free FM radio and TV, those higher frequencies became licensed, years ago. Wireless broadband, at the speeds they're talking about for 5G, will have to follow this upward trend in frequency bands too.
Unlicensed devices have no vested right to continue using any frequency
But FCC has designated some bands for extensive use by unlicensed devices (e.g., 902-928 MHz, 2400-2483.8 MHz, and 5725 - 5850 MHz)
So bottom line, "the 5 MHz band" is a nebulous concept. Only if operating within the 5725-5850 MHz range can anyone expect "the 5 MHz band" to be unlicensed in the future. My bet is, LTE service up there would end up using a new licensed portion of "the 5 MHz band."
Since it's unlicensed, why should carriers operate it ? and not consumers (in the wifi model) ? or even small entrepreneurs(for example in an automated pay as you go model or some share model) ? less industry concentration should be usefull.
Yes is they get accommodated in the same place where the present WiFi goes then it will surely be limiting the usability of the network as compared to current scenario, but yes at the same time statutory authorities will not allow them to do so especially in the free ISM band.
That depends on the reality of that coexistence. Would carriers have the same power limits as current ISM users? What about channel width? If they start pushing these limits and crowding out competing municipal wifi, for example, then coexistence starts taking a nasty turn. This seems to me like turning the fox loose in the henhouse.
It will definitely have to coexist with WIFI, and there are and will continue to be questions about what to do with this technology....still, it's pretty exciting to be where we are at with it right now.
If coexisting with WiFi works out for this technology then it will help deployment of the technology in terms of the cost of equipment as Wifi has become much matured and the chip-sets have become cost effective, yes but the coexisting should be demanding fundamental change in the existing Wifi architecture.