Fundamentally yes, but look at how both sides are trying to sell the issue. If Ligado and the FCC are both pushing this spectrum allocation issue as a question of helping 5G or not (and therefore hitching onto the we need 5G now or else China will beat us wagon), then I'm completely sympathetic to opposing coverage piling on the counter 5G bandwagon.
The counter 5G bandwagon seems to be largely comprised of conspiracy theories, dubious health claims, and unqualified assertions that people don't want more bandwidth. Why would you poison a legitimately important topic like spectrum allocation with associations like that?
Personally, I dislike how the conspiracy nonsense has kind of covered up the actual criticisms of 5g that existed prior to suddenly everyone thinking it's a great idea and if you don't, you're a conspiracy theorist.
I seem to recall this revolved around, questionable tangible benefits vs cost of deployment, poor penetration of 5g signals through structures, a lack of devices or internet plans to take advantage of 5g, and some other things that just seem to have taken a back seat to all the bullshit.
One has to wonder if some of the nonsense criticisms of 5G (causes disease, government conspiracy, etc) have been deliberately amplified to drown out legitimate technical concerns.
This is a genuine problem: the current polarization means that you are either in favor of 5G or a conspiracy theorist. This is not a healthy atmosphere for a rational discussion about long-term impact of 5G.
I was under the impression that there are serious non-conspiracy concerns about the impact of 5G networking on weather satellits [0]. Something along the lines of "they use a frequency in the range used by 5G in order to see water vapor".
