US Rollout of 5G Frequencies Delayed Over Aviation Safety Concerns. Are They Warranted? (usatoday.com) 31
Because of a "surprising and sudden request" from America's Federal Aviation Administration that's "based on unverified potential radio interference, a highly anticipated increase in 5G speeds and availability just got put on hold," writes the president/chief analyst of market research/consulting firm TECHnalysis.
But in an opinion piece for USA Today, he asks if the concern is actually warranted? [A]s soon as you start to dig into the details, the concerns quickly seem less practical and more political. Most notably, the plan to launch 5G services on C-Band frequencies has been in the works for several years and really took on momentum after the three big U.S. carriers spent over $80 billion earlier this year to get access to these frequencies. In addition, a report that the FAA cited as part of their complaint has been out for well over a year, so why the last-minute concerns?
U.S. government agencies are, unfortunately, known to hold grudges against one another, sometimes without real clarity as to what's actually involved, as appears to be the case here... Some 40 countries around the world are already using most of the C-Band frequencies for 5G (part of the reason the U.S. has fallen behind on the 5G front), and none have reported any interference with radio altimeters on planes in their countries, the wireless trade association CTIA argues on its website 5GandAviation.com. In addition, new filtering technologies being built into a somewhat obscure part of smartphones called the RF (radio frequency) front end, such as Qualcomm's recently introduced ultraBAW filters, can reduce interference issues on next generation smartphones.
All told, there are numerous reasons why the FAA's concerns around 5G deployment look to be more of a red herring than a legitimate technical concern. While it is true that some older radio altimeters with poor filtering might have to be updated and/or replaced to completely prevent interference, it's not clear that the theoretical interference would even cause an issue.
The article complains that the delayed expansion of bandwidth "could also delay important (and significant) economic impacts," since every previous change in cellular service levels "has triggered billions of dollars of new business and thousands of new jobs by creating new opportunities that faster wireless networks bring with them and 5G is expected do the same...
"While airplane safety shouldn't be compromised in any way, an overabundance of unnecessary caution on this issue could have a much bigger negative impact on the U.S.'s technology advancements and economy than many realize."
But in an opinion piece for USA Today, he asks if the concern is actually warranted? [A]s soon as you start to dig into the details, the concerns quickly seem less practical and more political. Most notably, the plan to launch 5G services on C-Band frequencies has been in the works for several years and really took on momentum after the three big U.S. carriers spent over $80 billion earlier this year to get access to these frequencies. In addition, a report that the FAA cited as part of their complaint has been out for well over a year, so why the last-minute concerns?
U.S. government agencies are, unfortunately, known to hold grudges against one another, sometimes without real clarity as to what's actually involved, as appears to be the case here... Some 40 countries around the world are already using most of the C-Band frequencies for 5G (part of the reason the U.S. has fallen behind on the 5G front), and none have reported any interference with radio altimeters on planes in their countries, the wireless trade association CTIA argues on its website 5GandAviation.com. In addition, new filtering technologies being built into a somewhat obscure part of smartphones called the RF (radio frequency) front end, such as Qualcomm's recently introduced ultraBAW filters, can reduce interference issues on next generation smartphones.
All told, there are numerous reasons why the FAA's concerns around 5G deployment look to be more of a red herring than a legitimate technical concern. While it is true that some older radio altimeters with poor filtering might have to be updated and/or replaced to completely prevent interference, it's not clear that the theoretical interference would even cause an issue.
The article complains that the delayed expansion of bandwidth "could also delay important (and significant) economic impacts," since every previous change in cellular service levels "has triggered billions of dollars of new business and thousands of new jobs by creating new opportunities that faster wireless networks bring with them and 5G is expected do the same...
"While airplane safety shouldn't be compromised in any way, an overabundance of unnecessary caution on this issue could have a much bigger negative impact on the U.S.'s technology advancements and economy than many realize."
5G What? (Score:5, Funny)
But I'm vaccinated.
--
The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated. - Mark Twain
Re:5G What? (Score:5, Funny)
You're vaccinated against the 5G small antennas found on the wheels of cars (specifically the horizontal ones that could be snipped off to reduce Covid suseptability).
This one is the airplane 5G. Finding the distinction is similar to comparing past planes' contrails to modern planes chemtrails (currently nitrous oxide, aka laughing gas, which combats depression and causes people to laugh when they hear about chemtrails).
Re: (Score:3)
They are warrented (Score:2)
5G beams Covid and snakes onto planes.
Re: (Score:2)
...and of course I'm out of mod points today!
Re: (Score:1)
Transporters only work on lawyers and politicians?
No. Period. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: No. Period. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Not exactly, how exactly would they have tested in real world conditions for this problem?
It's looking a lot like when the FCC sold licenses in/around GPS frequencies like what happened with LightSquared years ago.
Delays warranted because 5G is useless. (Score:1)
Now, on with 6G! Assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, on with 6G! Assholes.
I'm not sure how well "6G! Assholes" will fit on my phone's status line...
Not news (Score:5, Informative)
This is a fairly well known problem that was raised years ago. From what I hear, the aviation community has been predicting this conflict for some time.
Reality is, it's only a problem when planes are on final approach to an airport-- which is not a time when I want any instrument in the pilot's cabin to have any issues whatsoever. But it's also relatively easy to deal with-- no 5G towers within half a mile of the approach on any runway.
Re: (Score:2)
One detail of the issue here is that a "tower" is not necessarily stationary.
A base station could be mobile, to be deployed for special events and such. Then there are the "virtual base transceiver stations" [wikipedia.org] that various law enforcement, spy agencies and black hats use against governments, criminals and other people to intercept their mobile traffic and hack their phones.
If there are no special provisions and enforcements against these, then by Murphy's Law someone will deploy one in an area where it isn't
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you should invoke Murphy if it would improve the convenience for someone. Murphy is for things that nobody really wants to occur.
Re:Not news (Score:5, Interesting)
This whole thing reeks of the same FUD that says cell phones can't be used on planes. Hey, I'm ok with that because I don't want to be trapped listening to some guy next to me on the phone.
C band weather radars are in the same band as the radio altimeters and potentially as close in frequency as the 5G band. Instead of a 100W or so of effective radiated power, the altimeter needs to protect itself against 500Kw or more ERP. Short pulses but still. I have seen a couple of radars that operate right in the radio altimeter band. Why no shouting about this?
Has anyone actually verified in the lab that any kind of issue exists? Susceptibility would be easy to test. There are relatively few manufacturers of these things so it should be straightforward to do at least a representative investigation.
Re:Not news (Score:5, Informative)
Has anyone actually verified in the lab that any kind of issue exists?
Read for yourself [faa.gov] what the FAA is saying about this interference. The short answer is no, but the long answer is the FAA is requesting testing of said equipment and for manufacturers to report their results.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
It should be noted that WAIC (Wireless Avionics Intra-Communication) plans on using the radio altimeter band for implementation. There will be dozens of wireless transceivers on a civil aviation aircraft operating right on top of the radio altimeter frequencies but the FAA is ok with it. The dangers here are more significant than 5G vs RAlt; turn on your RAlt and all your flight controls go to shit.
Mind you they did some preliminary investigation and uncovered no problems but then again the spectrum wa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
And the FAA's concerns are not "sudden" unless the techie guy complaining hasn't read any of the other coverage of the issue in media dealing with the aviation industry, the GPS industry, or the US military, this year. Or in 2020. Or in 2019. Or even in 2018 [aia-aerospace.org].
Ever since the government sold off a chunk of frequencies fairly close to those used for other things, concerns have been raised about the chance for harmonics to interfere with position, navigation and timing. This is really not new, sudden, or wha
Re: (Score:2)
Most major airports in the world have a C-band radar which exceeds any 5G by up to THREE F*CKING ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE. Yes, that is the difference. A 5G cell with beam steering (as per spec) will emit milliwatts in a beam which is 10s of degrees wide and will lose power as expected from such a wide beam. A Meteorological radar (yes, they are all f*cking C-band) has power budget of ONE Kilowatt and most have a ONE degree beam. So the extent to which their pow
Safety (Score:2)
What about weather radar? (Score:2)
C-Bands Loss, Is now your problem (Score:3)
Radio altimeters on planes suck. They really do, they spatter 4.2-4.4 GHz signals from their antenna and they frequently interfere with satellite reception at the top of the C-Band receive segment. (4.2 Ghz) God help you if your antenna farm is on an approach flight path. This has been happening for decades and good luck getting these planes to fix their units so they don't splatter into C-Band... But, no longer my problem, C-band is being slimmed down so you can have 5G, and if you take a hit on your phone, so be it, it'll be a quick hit.. It's also just you, as opposed to everyone served by the cable companies national head end.
(Washing Hands Of Problem)
Reminds me of 20 years ago (Score:2)
Same thing here. Fix the damned avionics, then go after the asshats that spill over
Re: (Score:3)
I never worried too much about this rule and certainly not after seeing a pilot in the seat next to me leave his cellphone on.
This represents a major blow to the (Score:1)
... mind-control plans of Bill Gates et al. What was the point of creating a planned pandemic and introducing nanobots into the vaccine if you can't even control your botnet via 5G? This is a major screw-up and needs to be investigated.