US Airlines Warn 5G Wireless Could Cause Havoc With Flights (reuters.com) 89
Major U.S. air carriers warned on Wednesday that plans by AT&T and Verizon to use spectrum for 5G wireless services could be highly disruptive to air travel and cost air passengers $1.6 billion annually in delays. Reuters reports: Trade group Airlines for America (A4A) said if a new Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) directive for addressing potential interference from wireless transmissions had been in effect in 2019 "approximately 345,000 passenger flights, 32 million passengers, and 5,400 cargo flights would have been impacted in the form of delayed flights, diversions, or cancellations." At a hearing Wednesday, senators urged airlines to work to find a resolution. United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby said the 5G wireless issue "is the biggest and most damaging potential issue facing us. We want nothing more than to work to a solution." Southwest Airlines Chief Executive Gary Kelly said the FAA directive "would significantly impact our operations once it is deployed on Jan. 5." The wireless carriers are set to begin using the spectrum in just three weeks. Last week, the FAA issued new airworthiness directives warning interference from 5G wireless spectrum could result in flight diversions.
The aviation industry and FAA have raised significant concerns about potential interference of 5G with sensitive aircraft electronics like radio altimeters. In November, AT&T and Verizon agreed to delay the commercial launch of C-band wireless service until Jan. 5 after the FAA raised concerns. They also adopted precautionary measures for six months to limit interference. The FAA directives order revising airplane and helicopter flight manuals to prohibit some operations requiring radio altimeter data when in the presence of 5G C-Band wireless broadband signals. Aviation industry groups said they were insufficient to address air safety concerns. FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, who did not immediately comment on the airlines' analysis, has said she believes the issues can be resolved and spectrum safely used.
The aviation industry and FAA have raised significant concerns about potential interference of 5G with sensitive aircraft electronics like radio altimeters. In November, AT&T and Verizon agreed to delay the commercial launch of C-band wireless service until Jan. 5 after the FAA raised concerns. They also adopted precautionary measures for six months to limit interference. The FAA directives order revising airplane and helicopter flight manuals to prohibit some operations requiring radio altimeter data when in the presence of 5G C-Band wireless broadband signals. Aviation industry groups said they were insufficient to address air safety concerns. FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, who did not immediately comment on the airlines' analysis, has said she believes the issues can be resolved and spectrum safely used.
Covered by ARS already (Score:3)
Note that it's been pointed out that the rest of the world is already using the disputed bands with no issues.
Re:Covered by ARS already (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Covered by ARS already (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People working with radio spectrum are very possessive.
If there is a 0.0...01% additional chance for interference from a spectrum change it's worse than Hitler.
Re:Covered by ARS already (Score:5, Informative)
> Are [cgtn.com] you [thesun.co.uk] sure [channelnews.com.au] about that?
Yes. Everyone is sure. EVERYONE.
You have quoted three newspaper stories, but all three are copypastas from the FAA's latest press release. They continue to make this claim in spite of it having been extensively tested prior to 5G deployment and having seen widespread use since then **without a single recorded instance of interference**. Faced with this claimed problem not actually appearing, the FAA keeps moving the goalposts. This latest release claims it *might* interfere with safety procedures, just to sound scary, although it is precisely the same discredited claim they have been making all along.
5G cannot and will not interfere with radar altimeter. Period. We know this because we've been building radio systems for well over a century and know quite well how they work. And we have been building radar altimeters since the 1930s and we know quite well how they work too. And because of the way they work, they are naturally resistant to almost any sort of interference.
RALTs send out a continual signal that is changing in frequency. It bounces off the ground and returns to the aircraft where a frequency mixer compares the current frequency to the one being received. What this means is that any frequency outside the variation is easily and powerfully filtered out *by the very nature of the system's operation*. If one were to broadcast a signal right in the range being used, **and 5G will not**, any potential interference lasts only as long as the signal's PRF. That's normally on the order of milliseconds, so even if it does get through the gating, it will immediately disappear and the measure will return to normal.
And we know this is true in practice because we've been operating in this band since the 1940s. We know this because there have been other systems operating *on the same band as the altimeters with antennas pointed right up at them and operating at much higher received power without causing any issues whatsoever over a period of decades*. This includes the use of radar altimeters in the vicinity of *extremely powerful* C-band radars operating by the Navy, with zero interference.
We have plenty of theory that states this will not be a problem, and the better part of a century's operational history that says the same thing.
I do not understand the FAA's logic on this, but it's complete BS and everyone knows it:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/12/ajit-pai-and-tom-wheeler-agree-the-faa-is-behaving-badly-in-battle-against-fcc/
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Not sure what frequency bands exactly, but the c-band is already being used by T-Mobile on former Sprint frequencies in large parts of the US. And like you said the rest of the world including Canada also uses c-band frequencies for 4G and 5G. So not sure what these people are panicking about? Are we missing something?
Re: Covered by ARS already (Score:4, Informative)
Are we missing something?
Yes. The fact that the C band is very large. And the new allocation made to the telecoms only last year is the one that the airlines are concerned about. While it may be true that telecoms were already operating somewhere in the C band, their statement is aimed at the technologically illiterate.
And the guard bands are huge (Score:2)
Illiterate does not mean unintelligent.
Re: (Score:3)
Are we missing something?
Yes, you're missing the fact that even countries with larger guard bands between 5G services and radio altimeters used by airliners are *also* reporting issues. This is an American owned site with a primarily American readership, so things such as the French DSAC (FAA equivalent) issuing a safety warning to the airline industry https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/s... [ecologie.gouv.fr] or the Australian ACMA (FCC equivalent) also raising concern https://www.acma.gov.au/sites/... [acma.gov.au] (caution word document) often gets missed here.
Cancel all the flights ! (Score:2)
just cancel all the flights in USA.
Solves the interference.
Re: (Score:2)
In America 5G somehow became a political issue. Once it becomes a political issue, facts, reality and any attempt to mitigate any tradeoffs have stopped all together.
I expect the reasons of a lot of stuff had became political issue, was just so you can show that the people who think differently than you are are just trying to cancel your political beliefs. And if you can get it tied to a political party, you will automatically get a bunch of people following you on the idea, because you must follow all th
what's the frequency Kenneth ? (Score:5, Informative)
Hearing a lot of talk, but what i'm not hearing or seeing is numbers.
numbers concerning the frequency of operation.
numbers concerning the power of the transmitters.
numbers concerning the altimeters sensitivity to interference.
Also if this is truly a problem, then the FCC fucked up, big time.
I would suspect, because this is slashdot, and i want upvotes for guessing, is that the actual spectrum in use is not a problem, i.e. there is not direct interference. That would be too blatantly incompetent even by corporate captured regulator bodies, and also because the airlines have enough money to cause trouble. The problem is probably due to sideband energy or expected spurious, an really, most likely sidebands. This stuff is all OFDM at this point, and the non-linearity of the transmitters causes non-negligible sidebands due to 3rd order AND 5th order intermod. Since these systems have a very widebandwidth, those sidebands can extend quite far from the center carrier.
either the FCC hasn't set the limits low enough, or also possibly, cheap commercial crap will get through FCC testing that shouldn't, but due to weak enforcement, it will.
your correct in my opinion (Score:2)
spot on!
Re: (Score:2)
The ITU may be more to blame. They settled on a rather high power limit.
Re:what's the frequency Kenneth ? (Score:5, Informative)
RTCA has nice white paper [rtca.org] about it. The biggest concern seems to be that the available radar altimeters have very wide input filters, so they pass through lots of power from signals in the new cellular band that gets aliased into the radar return.
Re: (Score:2)
The RTCA report is here [rtca.org].
Direct link to the pdf from the page you pointed out.
Re: (Score:2)
What I'm reading is that the radar altimeters are extremely fragile, poorly designed devices. They need to be capable of working even if there is radio noise or they aren't safe to depend upon at all. What if some critical component is malfunctioning and spewing a bunch of RF?
Re: (Score:2)
Then they go around, go around again, and then divert.
The problem is that it takes so long for anything to be certified for use in aircraft, that the tech essentially sits still once it is approved. There is no certified replacement for the ground radars with wide filters, and you don't get to be "experimental" with commercial passengers on board.
Re: (Score:2)
What I'm reading is that the radar altimeters are extremely fragile, poorly designed devices.
No. There's nothing poorly designed about them. The nature of their operation requires them to be wide band and not reject out of band frequencies or they can't do what they require.
RF design isn't simply about rejecting noise. Very many applications simply can't reject noise. E.g. GPS, or other satellite services, S-band radar, or actually any radar. That is the reason they specifically license spectrum in a way to ensure there simply isn't any noise needing rejection.
The problem here is that the license p
Re: (Score:2)
What I'm reading is that the radar altimeters are extremely fragile, poorly designed devices. They need to be capable of working even if there is radio noise or they aren't safe to depend upon at all. What if some critical component is malfunctioning and spewing a bunch of RF?
Previously they did not need better selectivity before the first mixer because there were no powerful transmitters on adjacent frequencies.
For an alternative view (Score:3)
Check out 5G coexistence with RALT [5gamericas.org], especially section 4.
The RTCA report is excellent but it is a bit like commercial companies sponsoring research to support a predetermined point of view. ICAO wanted a report critical of 5G so they went to an aviation based organization and that is what they got. 5G industry responds in kind.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it gets aliased ... it's measuring distance. Autocorrelation of a semirandom sequence should be resistant to absolutely ridiculous levels of interference.
Re: (Score:2)
Oops, cross correlation.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's covered in the RTCA paper too. It is most problematic for continuous wave RALTs. But cross correlation can exceed a threshold that used to be reasonable if the incoming noise is loud enough. For example, GNSS avionics have long been required to check the satellite ID embedded in broadcast data before using a signal. That is specifically because of spurious correlations with the wrong pseudo-random noise (DSSS) sequence, even when assuming normal received power for all the GNSS signals.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it gets aliased ... it's measuring distance. Autocorrelation of a semirandom sequence should be resistant to absolutely ridiculous levels of interference.
It is resistant to returning a false reading, not from being blocked by a powerful carrier or high noise level.
Re: (Score:2)
The subject frequencies are 3.7-3.98 GHz for 5G, and 4.2-4.4 GHz for radio altimeters. There is sufficient separation that a well designed RF front end will avoid interference. If the airlines bought poorly designed instruments, it behooves them to pay the cost to replace (or modify) them with better ones. They've had plenty of time to do so. This is about money, not technology.
whiners not capable to desig a proper filter (Score:2)
Yep. Just a bunch of whiners not capable to desig a proper filter.
Re: (Score:2)
the FCC recognized that
“Radio altimeters are critical aeronautical safety-of-life systems primarily
used at altitudes under 2500 feet above ground level (AGL) and must operate
without harmful interference,”232
2
F23 but concluded based on the public record
that “well-designed equipment should not ordinarily receive any significant
interference (let alone harmful interference) given these circumstances.”24
Re:Airplane mode (Score:4, Insightful)
I hear the sarcasm, but I'll heed to these sentences from Wikipedia:
On the other hand, official aviation agencies and safety boards are resisting any relaxation of the present safety rules unless and until it can be conclusively shown that it would be safe to do so. There are both technical and social factors which make the issues more complex than a simple discussion of safety versus hazard"
Is it really too much to ask that people put their phone in airplane mode during take-off and landing, when the chance of crashing is the highest, in case that it save 290 people's lives in case shit?
And to the second point of the quote, would you really be okay sitting next to a person yapping about bullshit for 1.5 hours? We banned smoking on flights. Is it too much to ban the dude next to you from getting pissed off at his employees for 1.5 hours on a flight?
I used to tell one of my kids when she was younger to take a chill pill, stand behind the window, and check things outside our home for 2 minutes. She doesn't argue with me about that any longer. Perhaps the person who needs to be on the phone on a flight hasn't grown up yet.
Re: (Score:2)
I got cancer because the person sitting next to me couldn't shut their mouth. I got better once I got a whiskey and slammed some benadryl though. Maybe we should treat all airline passengers as if they are children, and children should be treated as toddlers. I guess toddlers should be treated as feti. But again, I suggest whiskey and benadryl for everyone, no noise no fuss.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's conspiracy talk ;)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is you are then relying on people complying, and remembering the spare phone or tablet they have in their bag. Some of them will probably just turn off wifi and assume that's all they needed to do.
The aircraft needs to be secure against 5G interference, it's the only way to ensure safety.
Re:Airplane mode (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it really too much to ask that people put their phone in airplane mode during take-off and landing, when the chance of crashing is the highest, in case that it save 290 people's lives in case shit?
Many people, due to apathy, ignorance, carelessness; will not do it properly. So depending on people being "nice" for the safety of thousands of people is very dangerous. Note that there is no minimum competence required to fly commercial aircraft in most countries.
So it is not too much to ask, but too much to expect. If the first device left switched on crashes a whole plane, why are people being allowed to carry such devices on board ? Water from my home is not allowed because it looks like some clear liquid explosives, nail filers are not allowed because I could hijack the plane with it, but aircraft disabling circuitry is expressly allowed and my goodwill sought regarding its safe operation ? Something doesn't compute.
The theoretically existing terrorist, the bogeyman which has made air travel hell, is gloating.
Re: (Score:2)
Nail clippers [tsa.gov] and nail files [tsa.gov] are allowed and have been for quite some time, IIRC there was only a short period where they were (stupidly) banned.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem seems to come from the towers rather than the phones. Cell phones have pretty low output whereas the higher band 5G ones are fairly powerful for what they are. Radar altimeters seem to accept a fairly wide bandwidth which can overlap with those C band ground based transmitters.
The old rule about turning your phones off was based more on an over abundance of caution than any real danger from 1G and 2G cell phones causing interference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ground reflects signals in this range pretty well. That's the principle behind a radar altimeter. Aiming the antenna down means they will still be reflected upwards, just at a more oblique angle.
I think the real solution here isn't doing anything to the 5G stations themselves. Its all in the radar altimeters. They need to be more narrow band and better at discriminating other signals. These bands don't even really overlap. Google tells me radar altimeters operate between 4.2 and 4.4Ghz where 5G has a big ho
Re: (Score:2)
Is it really too much to ask that people put their phone in airplane mode during take-off and landing, when the chance of crashing is the highest, in case that it save 290 people's lives in case shit?
What would airplane mode on my phone do to save the plane? As I understand it, the 5G *towers* are interfering with the equipment, not tiny cell phones.
Re: (Score:2)
Higher power from the towers directed towards the phone(s) on your aircraft due to MIMO spatial multiplexing. In other words, they beamform the tower uplink to increase received power at the handset.
Re: (Score:2)
I hear the sarcasm, but I'll heed to these sentences from Wikipedia:
On the other hand, official aviation agencies and safety boards are resisting any relaxation of the present safety rules unless and until it can be conclusively shown that it would be safe to do so. There are both technical and social factors which make the issues more complex than a simple discussion of safety versus hazard"
Is it really too much to ask that people put their phone in airplane mode during take-off and landing, when the chance of crashing is the highest, in case that it save 290 people's lives in case shit?
And to the second point of the quote, would you really be okay sitting next to a person yapping about bullshit for 1.5 hours? We banned smoking on flights. Is it too much to ban the dude next to you from getting pissed off at his employees for 1.5 hours on a flight?
On the first point, its the same reason it's too hard for them to listen to the safety briefing or keep their seatbelt on whilst taxiing*. Pure selfishness, the whole pervasive "I'm alright Jack" attitude.
On the second point, this is why most inflight Wifi bans the use of VOIP and teleconference and does a pretty good job of blocking it although I suspect it's the stupidly low limits for bandwidth and data, if not the latency of a satellite connection do plenty on their own to limit this. Also, you've p
Re: (Score:2)
"airplane mode" is not because of the risk for the aircraft.
Re: Airplane mode (Score:2)
Is it really too much to ask that people put their phone in airplane mode during take-off and landing,
Yes. Some people [nypost.com] just don't like their vidia games taken away from them. And I wouldn't trust their judgement as to when something may or may not be safe. That Baldwin guy is going to get someone killed eventually.
Is there anything 5G won't do? (Score:1)
Some Bozos wll burn the plane (Score:2)
...while they're in it.
FUD FUD FUD (Score:4, Interesting)
More than a bit of FUD. Consider WAICS.
WAICS is the acronym for Wireless Avionics Intra Communication System; it proposes to replace all of that heavy physical cable infrastructure in passenger aircraft with a wireless data system. No more fly by wire as it will be replaced with fly-by-wireless-com. Check out this WAIC overview [avsi.aero].
Also check out a similar presentation page 14 [icao.int] for some spectrum discussion.
ITU-R and ICAO have chosen the full radio altimeter spectrum (RALT) for WAIC and expects that there will be no problems. Manufacturers will have to lab test their altimeters and rework them to be compatible. Also consider that S Band weather radars (3-3.8Ghz) operate close to RALT spectrum and have far more powerful effective radiation output then 5G, and are often close to airports. We have a critical aircraft control system planned with dozens of transmitters on each plane sharing spectrum with RALT and powerful radars yet no public hew and cry about safety. Of course all these sources are inside the aviation industry umbrella.
Concerns about RF interference with aircraft systems always need attention and study but it is disingenuous for ICAO and the FAA to single out 5G for this much concern. Airports are awash with powerful and overlapping rf sources, especially if there are any military sites nearby. Aircraft instrumentation manufacturers know this and build accordingly.
This is a turf war at an international level between aviation and consumer communications and isn't just FAA vs FCC. The RALT spectrum was under utilized and ripe for slicing off pieces for other purposes. Aviation safety is the rallying cry but it is really about who holds the big stick at the ITU when spectrum is allocated or re-allocated.
Re: FUD FUD FUD (Score:2)
Aircraft instrumentation manufacturers know this and build accordingly.
And they do. But this allocation was made only a year ago. The life of an airframe and its avionics is in excess of 20 years. The next generation of RAs will be impervious to out of band intetference. Until then, you can wait with your iDevices.
Yes and no (Score:2)
And they do. But this allocation was made only a year ago.
The allocation was made a year ago but was proposed four years ago and was informally discussed even earlier. The allocation was made after it was determined that there would be no co-existence issue with avionics. The oft quoted RTCA report is a bit of a stretch, does not expect significant level of spectrum splash and is basically full of what-ifs.
I don't have any skin in this game and I could give a rat's ass whether 5G operates at in the 3.8Ghz spectrum.
The aviation reaction is way over the top. T
Re: (Score:2)
> And they do. But this allocation was made only a year ago.
After years and years of study and tests to ensure nothing would happen.
And when even that didn't satisfy, they added an *additional* 200 MHz guard band, just because.
And the FAA still has zero argument to back up their claims, and is repeatedly putting out press releases making the claim anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
The next generation of RAs will be impervious to out of band intetference. Until then, you can wait with your iDevices.
You know what - I am going actually side with the telcos on this one. The FAA does not determine who the primary users on a slice of radio spectrum are, the FCC does and the the carriers paid dearly for the allocation they ought to get to use it. I would also argue the more of the public is served directly or indirectly by increased mobile spectrum availability than by commercial aviation.
If the entire nation can be asked to replace all kinds of perfectly good equipment and in many cases lose access to va
Re: (Score:2)
The FAA does not determine who the primary users on a slice of radio spectrum are, the FCC does
Do you know what the spectrum allocation procedures were in 1938?
and the the carriers paid dearly for the allocation they ought to get to use it.
Were the airlines reimbursed for the return of the RA band that they are no longer able to use? It sounds like the telecoms were sold something that wasn't for sale. Would you like a bridge in New York? If the telecom companies have a beef with anyone, let them chase down Ajit Pai.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that covid threw a big monkey wrench into the development and implementation of wireless avionics. Both Boeing and Airbus are extremely interested in shedding weight from their aircraft and if one does it the other will follow just to stay competitive.
No matter how far from actual implementation, the aviation industry is very interested in it. It will happen sooner or later.
WAICS progress (Score:2)
Check this Airbus presentation [sae.org] from 2017 which maps out some expected standardization progress through to 2019.
This stuff is not hard to find. Just because you have not seen production equipment in your lab does not mean it isn't happening.
Re: (Score:2)
Concerns about RF interference with aircraft systems always need attention and study but it is disingenuous for ICAO and the FAA to single out 5G for this much concern.
Not just the FAA but the DGAC (French) and Australians as well. You thinking this is being singled out due to some political nonsense just shows how ill-informed you are.
Also consider that S Band weather radars (3-3.8Ghz) operate close to RALT spectrum
Indeed, and its dispersion pattern doesn't impact RALTs. You'd know this if you bothered reading the study that identified 5G as being an issue in the first place.
Airports are awash with powerful and overlapping rf sources, especially if there are any military sites nearby.
Indeed they are. Just as well they are carefully regulated to ensure they don't interfere with each other or other critical equipment. Oh except for 5G, the transmitters of which
Then I guess two choices (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
>> radio interference problems cannot be fixed
Radio interference can always be fixed, especially when you have 200Mhz guard.
Re: (Score:2)
If the aviation industry equipment does not meet spec
It does meet the spec. The issue is that the FCC didn't consider the spec when they granted the licenses in adjacent bands.
It's precisely the spec here which is the issue. The ACMA (Australian FCC) published their own study on this and calculated that 5G causes interference with the spec ITU-R M.2059-0 Operational and technical characteristics and protection criteria of radio altimeters utilizing the band 4 200-4 400 MHz despite the fact they are 500MHz further away from the 4.2GHz band than the Americans,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The carriers bid on spectrum and they should get what they paid for or get a refund with penalties from the government.
You're making a big assumption on what they promised to do with that spectrum. 5G shits on adjacent bands like nobodies business. I wonder if the FCC was given the full info before they opened the spectrum licenses.
Don't be so quick to pass judgement, especially when defending the party in this threesome who historically has been the *least* reliable / truthful.
Re: (Score:2)
Just a myth (Score:2)
There is not one proven case of actual interference between ANY mobile phone and aviation equipment.
Someone noted that it was theoretically possible and they outlawed it. No one ever tested it and the regulations make it very difficult to test it.
Note, they do allow PILOTS to use tablets that have phone connections, and many pilots, particularly small plane pilots, use tablets with aviation software installed, without putting them into 'airplane' mode (airplane mode of course means turning off the radio tr
Re: (Score:2)
*This is not a 5G myth, but a cell phone myth. Same stupidity applied to 1-4G
*Again, myth that it intereferes, not working would not stop people from using airplane mode, cell phones do a lot more than make calls.
*Again, it is a MYTH that any cellphone would cause problems, so claiming that more would cause more problems is just as unproven. The fact that a few have NOT caused any problems indicates that anyone claiming more would a problem should have to prove it, rather than just state it as fact.
* Yes
Why wasn't testing done before the auction? (Score:1)
C-Band 5G Inside the Cabin is DIFFERENT! (Score:2)
Prior discussions have focused on C-band 5G towers outside the cabin affecting radar altimeters. That's just an FAA screw-up, and has NEVER been observed to be a "real" problem.
Inside the cabin is a very different situation. The skin of commercial aircraft (including the carbon-fiber 787) serves very well as a Faraday cage to keep external signals outside. But that also means it works very well to keep internal signals inside. For this reason, all aircraft systems are required to have minimal emissions,
Re: (Score:2)
Let me add a little nuance. My main concern isn't with new cables within new aircraft, but with old cables that have been installed for years and been exposed to countless shaking and vibration flight cycles, exposed to oxidation and moisture, and having had many connect/disconnect cycles as part of normal maintenance.
Cables for aircraft don't receive HALT as a system: Only the cable on the spool from the vendor has that kind of specification, and all aircraft installers are required to use certified cable
Re: (Score:2)
Another bit of detail: All commercial aircraft are required to "tolerate" lightning striking the fuselage. This doesn't mean nothing is allowed to happen, but that whatever does happen is recovered from very rapidly, without permanent damage. It's about survivability for discrete events.
Emissions from cell phones inside the cabin are indeed discrete events from the perspective of the individual cell phone, which normally sends the occasional query packet to say "I'm here" to local towers, even if it can't
If the FAA is really concerned about 5G (Score:2)
Moving emitters need bandwidth (Score:2)
5G Messes with Weather Radar, as well. (Score:2)