“Catastrophic Disruption” HAHHAAHAHHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!! Nice try, airlines. This 'prediction' has about as much chance of happening as with all the planes falling out of the skies back on January 1, 2000.
Actually, the FAA issued advisories for certain models of planes not to fly - that in turn takes the planes out of service and forces flight cancellations.
If you’re on a cancelled flight I’m sure you’d be annoyed, but less so than if you were on a flight that had it’s avionics disrupted by a cell phone signal.
Why is it only ATT and Verizon are mentioned. I live about a mike from PIE and am using full bars of TMO 5G U/C, so does this mean TMO is using different 5G technology and is not being targeted/called out by US airlines.
This only affects a specific part of 5G (c band) that Verizon and AT&T purchased at auction. T Mo doesn’t use it.
This whole saga is entertaining, disturbing and aggravating at the same time. The problem is the FCC controls the airwaves but the FAA controls the airline industry. The FAA has no control over the FCC so all they can do is issue advisories to the airlines. You’d think they could talk to each other, but…
First, c band is not required for 5G; it’s only one part so the Telcos can still roll out 5G without it. Second, 5G isn’t required at all, despite what they try to argue. There’s little if anything you can’t do with a good LTE signal.
It’s also annoying that the airlines and FAA haven’t done more testing prior to this but I will also say that the physics is not necessarily straightforward and a laboratory test wouldn’t necessarily translate to real world conditions. It’s likely difficult for them to say for sure before the towers are in place and they can actually measure the strength of the signals along the flight paths.
Regardless, the FAA and the airline industry take safety very seriously and don’t take risks so I totally understand their position. How would the public react if there was a crash due to this and they said “well, we didnt’ actually test it but according to the simulations we didn’t think it would be an issue.”
Usually I would side with the Telco, but for the life of me I cannot imagine a hidden agenda that the airlines may have - how could they possibly benefit from delaying 5G roll-out. So I must take their cautions seriously. The only argument could be, that all airlines see this as an opportunity to cull their unprofitable routes and to use the Telcos as a scapegoat (i.e., they do not really want to stop 5G roll-out, hence they are not suing them but merely issuing press releases. Could this be done without collusion?)
This is obviously an issue that needs to be arbitrated by a truly neutral and independent third party that possesses the wherewithal to properly evaluate the risk. The party conducting the evaluation would ideally not be the same authority rendering the final ruling or have any financial or political ties to the companies involved in the conflict. Putting this combination together may be quite difficult and time consuming.
For example, could the FCC contract a company like Raytheon to conduct the testing at a government facility like an Air Force or Navy air base that’s configured for worst-case test scenarios? Setting up 5G test towers, instrumentation, and arranging for commercial aviation test planes certainly seems doable but it would cost a big chunk of change. Who pays for it?
In times past I would have pointed to the FCC as having the lead on this sort of thing. Unfortunately the FCC, like many federal organizations are led by political appointees. We saw that some of these appointees were clearly puppets of the big politician who threw them the big bone. The mission of the organization became irrelevant to the point of the appointees actually sabotaging and subverting the cause that they were supposed to protect. Once the head of an organization like the FCC is beholden to the red or the blue they are no longer serving the needs of the me and the you.
This is obviously an issue that needs to be arbitrated by a truly neutral and independent third party that possesses the wherewithal to properly evaluate the risk. The party conducting the evaluation would ideally not be the same authority rendering the final ruling or have any financial or political ties to the companies involved in the conflict. Putting this combination together may be quite difficult and time consuming.
For example, could the FCC contract a company like Raytheon to conduct the testing at a government facility like an Air Force or Navy air base that’s configured for worst-case test scenarios? Setting up 5G test towers, instrumentation, and arranging for commercial aviation test planes certainly seems doable but it would cost a big chunk of change. Who pays for it?
In times past I would have pointed to the FCC as having the lead on this sort of thing. Unfortunately the FCC, like many federal organizations are led by political appointees. We saw that some of these appointees were clearly puppets of the big politician who threw them the big bone. The mission of the organization became irrelevant to the point of the appointees actually sabotaging and subverting the cause that they were supposed to protect. Once the head of an organization like the FCC is beholden to the red or the blue they are no longer serving the needs of the me and the you.
Both the FAA and the FCC should be completely neutral. They are there to represent the country and regulate their particular industry -- not cheerlead or run interference for it.
I'm surprised by how many folks here are siding with the telcos on this one. These companies have a long history of absolutely making up anything to forward their agenda and their bottom lines.
It's true that the aviation industry is also motivated by money, but unlike telcos they also have to take passenger safety very seriously. And does anyone here remember the other science-driven industry that objected to hasty 5G rollouts, the weather forecasters?
I think the claims of telcos should be taken with extreme skepticism.
One normally might, but there considerable experience -- which is that 5G amounts to a hill of beans for aircraft risk -- from 40 other countries (and their many more Telcos) that have implemented this already, a fact that you're ignoring.
I'm surprised by how many folks here are siding with the telcos on this one. These companies have a long history of absolutely making up anything to forward their agenda and their bottom lines.
It's true that the aviation industry is also motivated by money, but unlike telcos they also have to take passenger safety very seriously. And does anyone here remember the other science-driven industry that objected to hasty 5G rollouts, the weather forecasters?
I think the claims of telcos should be taken with extreme skepticism.
One normally might, but there considerable experience -- which is that 5G amounts to a hill of beans for aircraft risk -- from 40 other countries (and their many more Telcos) that have implemented this already, a fact that you're ignoring.
I would note that the foreign telcos do not have access to the bandwidths as close to that of RADAR Altimeters as the FCC has allowed, which is the essence of the problem, and that the FCC likely allows higher power levels from cell sites as well.
I posted the link to the RTCA document. It is the basis for the concern by the airlines and the FAA. If you don't accept that, or can't find, a summary in recent news, nor in the other links I posted, then you are out of luck. I will also note that helicopters and air ambulances would also be at risk from the current FCC rules.
I'm not an RF guy, but it appears to me that the parametric simulations section of the report begins at page 58.
Tech may believe in "move fast and break things" but that is anathema to aviation, which is well known for its thorough certification process, unlike such memes as "Full Self Driving" that is anything but.
I'm surprised by how many folks here are siding with the telcos on this one. These companies have a long history of absolutely making up anything to forward their agenda and their bottom lines.
It's true that the aviation industry is also motivated by money, but unlike telcos they also have to take passenger safety very seriously. And does anyone here remember the other science-driven industry that objected to hasty 5G rollouts, the weather forecasters?
I think the claims of telcos should be taken with extreme skepticism.
One normally might, but there considerable experience -- which is that 5G amounts to a hill of beans for aircraft risk -- from 40 other countries (and their many more Telcos) that have implemented this already, a fact that you're ignoring.
I would note that the foreign telcos do not have access to the bandwidths as close to that of RADAR Altimeters as the FCC has allowed, which is the essence of the problem, and that the FCC likely allows higher power levels from cell sites as well.
But the point is, the solution to this, which is to require lower levels (even lower than those in the other 40 countries) in a substantial radius around airports, has already been proposed.
I'm surprised by how many folks here are siding with the telcos on this one. These companies have a long history of absolutely making up anything to forward their agenda and their bottom lines.
It's true that the aviation industry is also motivated by money, but unlike telcos they also have to take passenger safety very seriously. And does anyone here remember the other science-driven industry that objected to hasty 5G rollouts, the weather forecasters?
I think the claims of telcos should be taken with extreme skepticism.
One normally might, but there considerable experience -- which is that 5G amounts to a hill of beans for aircraft risk -- from 40 other countries (and their many more Telcos) that have implemented this already, a fact that you're ignoring.
It's actually not about 5G. T-Mobile has rolled out their 5G with no problems.
It is about the "C-Band spectrum" that AT&T and Verizon have started using (for 5G). Apparently altimeters also use that spectrum -- or close enough to it to not matter.
And not using it around airports would limit just a very small portion of what was sold to them.
I suspect their biggest problem with this is that T-Mobile has spectrum that could be used safely around airports because it doesn't interfere. So, AT&T & Verizon fear T-Mobile might move in because they can do it and these two can't.
This is obviously an issue that needs to be arbitrated by a truly neutral and independent third party that possesses the wherewithal to properly evaluate the risk. The party conducting the evaluation would ideally not be the same authority rendering the final ruling or have any financial or political ties to the companies involved in the conflict. Putting this combination together may be quite difficult and time consuming.
For example, could the FCC contract a company like Raytheon to conduct the testing at a government facility like an Air Force or Navy air base that’s configured for worst-case test scenarios? Setting up 5G test towers, instrumentation, and arranging for commercial aviation test planes certainly seems doable but it would cost a big chunk of change. Who pays for it?
In times past I would have pointed to the FCC as having the lead on this sort of thing. Unfortunately the FCC, like many federal organizations are led by political appointees. We saw that some of these appointees were clearly puppets of the big politician who threw them the big bone. The mission of the organization became irrelevant to the point of the appointees actually sabotaging and subverting the cause that they were supposed to protect. Once the head of an organization like the FCC is beholden to the red or the blue they are no longer serving the needs of the me and the you.
Both the FAA and the FCC should be completely neutral. They are there to represent the country and regulate their particular industry -- not cheerlead or run interference for it.
In this case, neither have done their job.
You are correct. Both of these organizations, the FAA and the FCC, have been corrupted by parochial interests from industry and politics. We are basically witnessing a huge public spat between the FAA and the FCC. The technical details and issues of potential interference should have been dealt with before the FCC approved the auctioning off the spectrum in question. Neither of these organizations were lacking the technical resources either within or adjacent to their areas of technical responsibility and oversight that would have prevented them from conducting the required assessments prior to the sale of the spectrum in question. Now they are hiding in their own bunkers and expecting the executive branch to come up with a solution, which pretty much dooms it for failure if you’re looking for a permanent solution, regardless of who’s sitting in the Oval Office.
This issue really has some interesting arguments. Outrageousness on both sides. While I understand the concern from the airlines, that interference from these new 5G C band cellular towers could potentially interfere with aircrafts’ systems, the frequency bands in question are VERY FAR APART, in terms of radio spectrum.
C-Band was used for the downlink in C-Band satellite communications (3.7-4.2 GHz, a bandwidth of 500 MHz). The aircraft altimeter systems operate in the 4.2-4.4 GHz range. FCC re-allocated a portion of the C-Band from Satcom to cellular. This is the portion from 3.7-3.98GHz, leaving the rest for Satcom. From a radio spectrum perspective, the upper limit of the re-allocated bandwidth (3.98GHz) is over 200MHz away from the lower limit of the altimeter systems. That’s a VAST distance in radio spectrum, so any spillover from potentially ‘dirty’ cellular radio systems would not be present at any significant levels in the 4.2-4.4GHz range. Especially since the new 5G towers are built from the latest and greatest radio transmitter technologies, which are very good at controlling out of band emissions.
Anyway, here’s a good perspective on the whole mess:
Comments
If you’re on a cancelled flight I’m sure you’d be annoyed, but less so than if you were on a flight that had it’s avionics disrupted by a cell phone signal.
This whole saga is entertaining, disturbing and aggravating at the same time. The problem is the FCC controls the airwaves but the FAA controls the airline industry. The FAA has no control over the FCC so all they can do is issue advisories to the airlines. You’d think they could talk to each other, but…
First, c band is not required for 5G; it’s only one part so the Telcos can still roll out 5G without it. Second, 5G isn’t required at all, despite what they try to argue. There’s little if anything you can’t do with a good LTE signal.
It’s also annoying that the airlines and FAA haven’t done more testing prior to this but I will also say that the physics is not necessarily straightforward and a laboratory test wouldn’t necessarily translate to real world conditions. It’s likely difficult for them to say for sure before the towers are in place and they can actually measure the strength of the signals along the flight paths.
Regardless, the FAA and the airline industry take safety very seriously and don’t take risks so I totally understand their position. How would the public react if there was a crash due to this and they said “well, we didnt’ actually test it but according to the simulations we didn’t think it would be an issue.”
The only argument could be, that all airlines see this as an opportunity to cull their unprofitable routes and to use the Telcos as a scapegoat (i.e., they do not really want to stop 5G roll-out, hence they are not suing them but merely issuing press releases. Could this be done without collusion?)
For example, could the FCC contract a company like Raytheon to conduct the testing at a government facility like an Air Force or Navy air base that’s configured for worst-case test scenarios? Setting up 5G test towers, instrumentation, and arranging for commercial aviation test planes certainly seems doable but it would cost a big chunk of change. Who pays for it?
In times past I would have pointed to the FCC as having the lead on this sort of thing. Unfortunately the FCC, like many federal organizations are led by political appointees. We saw that some of these appointees were clearly puppets of the big politician who threw them the big bone. The mission of the organization became irrelevant to the point of the appointees actually sabotaging and subverting the cause that they were supposed to protect. Once the head of an organization like the FCC is beholden to the red or the blue they are no longer serving the needs of the me and the you.
One normally might, but there considerable experience -- which is that 5G amounts to a hill of beans for aircraft risk -- from 40 other countries (and their many more Telcos) that have implemented this already, a fact that you're ignoring.
I would note that the foreign telcos do not have access to the bandwidths as close to that of RADAR Altimeters as the FCC has allowed, which is the essence of the problem, and that the FCC likely allows higher power levels from cell sites as well.
https://www.rtca.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/SC-239-5G-Interference-Assessment-Report_274-20-PMC-2073_accepted_changes.pdf
I'm not an RF guy, but it appears to me that the parametric simulations section of the report begins at page 58.
Tech may believe in "move fast and break things" but that is anathema to aviation, which is well known for its thorough certification process, unlike such memes as "Full Self Driving" that is anything but.
Edit;
Came across this link at ped30.com
https://verticalmag.com/news/aviation-experts-warn-5g-rollout-could-result-in-wildly-wrong-altimeter-readings/?amp
https://fallows.substack.com/p/the-5g-airline-controversy-what-is
C-Band was used for the downlink in C-Band satellite communications (3.7-4.2 GHz, a bandwidth of 500 MHz). The aircraft altimeter systems operate in the 4.2-4.4 GHz range. FCC re-allocated a portion of the C-Band from Satcom to cellular. This is the portion from 3.7-3.98GHz, leaving the rest for Satcom. From a radio spectrum perspective, the upper limit of the re-allocated bandwidth (3.98GHz) is over 200MHz away from the lower limit of the altimeter systems. That’s a VAST distance in radio spectrum, so any spillover from potentially ‘dirty’ cellular radio systems would not be present at any significant levels in the 4.2-4.4GHz range. Especially since the new 5G towers are built from the latest and greatest radio transmitter technologies, which are very good at controlling out of band emissions.
Anyway, here’s a good perspective on the whole mess:
https://www.sdxcentral.com/articles/opinion-editorial/op-ed-mid-band-5g-meets-american-incompetence/2022/01/