FAA, FCC Are Making 'Progress' on 5G Signal Woes (bloomberg.com) 22
U.S. aviation regulators are having "very productive discussions" with the Federal Communications Commission and the telecommunications industry over concerns that 5G technology could interfere with aircraft equipment, an official said. From a report: At the same time, Federal Aviation Administration chief Steve Dickson on Tuesday said that the agency is considering safety measures including possible flight restrictions if necessary. Aviation industry officials have said that it's possible that the signals could disturb safety equipment on airliners and helicopters, while the FCC and the telecommunications industry has said there is no evidence of a problem.
Deja vu? (Score:1)
Don't use your cellphone as a phone while flying? I believe that 5G is more about ground level issues, but still?
I know that avionics can be extremely important when flying high and when near the ground.
Any details for us?
Re:Deja vu? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's because the high band 5G bands are near the radio altimeter bands. The radio altimeter tells you height above the ground, and it's vitally important during landing where it tells you how close you are to smacking that hard thing we call "the ground".
If you watch landing videos, the radio altimeter is what produces that "500... 100... 50..40..30..20..10" announcement, and pilots typically listen to the cadence of the voice to determine their vertical speed.
Of course, the problem is interfering with it could result in issues such as malfunction, and that can be problematic during critical phases of flight like landing, where it may be a harmless harder than normal landing, or a crash landing if height is misjudged.
Likely the FAA and FCC are going to figure a workaround - such as not allocating those bands in the landing flight path or other thing. Or maybe an avionics upgrade - there are mitigating strategies after all.
Or the FCC can demand tighter frequency control so spillover is minimal.
Re: (Score:2)
Likely the FAA and FCC are going to figure a workaround
Children eventually grow up and stop squabbling about non-existent problems, but I highly suspect in this case you'll instead get some pointless regulatory exercise instead.
altimeters built with poor RF filtering (Score:3)
But, progress is slow ... (Score:3)
FAA, FCC Are Making 'Progress' on 5G Signal Woes
Vaccinating airplanes is difficult because you need *really* strong needles and aerodynamic band-aids.
They've been hampered though... (Score:1)
Anytime either side wants to point out an issue w/ equipment and 5G, they fire it up on the tower and then everyone gets Covid and they have to wait a few weeks before they can try again...
The biggest woe (Score:3)
Is that the old 3G networks are being shuttered. I don't care about speed. I care that if I am in the middle of nowhere I can get enough speed to load a webpage or make a call. On verizon I can get dropped calls while going down a major freeway now. I also can't get calls in three locations in a basement anymore. There are also multiple locations where I used to be able to get calls and data and I can't anymore. And verizon had the most coverage, most other carriers don't come close. All because the major carriers want more speed
Re: (Score:2)
Activating my small media player, which is actually a cheap unlocked cell-phone, solved my problem. The service I have uses WiFi calling if available. When awake at home, my second cell-phone is only 5 feet from the "base station". And in
Re: (Score:2)
They do on sale Android phones, but wifi calling sucks and doesn't help if you're not at home
Re: (Score:2)
Now if you ask me do I trust that I will get good service everywhere on Google Fi?
The answer is: Of course not, no better than any other cell service. And possibly worse than if I was a direct client of a major cell provider.
Finally! (Score:3)
This intra-governmental discussion should have happened long ago, before the frequencies were sold.
As for consumer RF on planes, I recall years ago a coworker pointing out that the early Wi-Fi PDAs we were using had two interesting features: 1) no OFF button (they only suspended); and 2) their calendar apps dutifully woke up the device right at take-off to remind you of the flight you'd scheduled.
Question of cost (Score:3)
I'm more sympathetic to the FAA's position. If the FCC makes a mistake, we have to live with slower data connections. If the FAA makes a mistake, people die. Given that, I think the standard shouldn't be that there's no evidence it'll cause a problem but that there's solid evidence it won't cause a problem.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with that stance is that the FAA gets to overrule the FCC when instead the FAA should be subservient to the FCC when it comes to matters of the EM spectrum and its usage.
And the time to make this an issue was when the FCC was selling the spectrum, not afterward.
The interesting thing is that this just seems to be an issue in the US - here in NZ, the 5G bands (3.7– to 3.98 GHz) are significantly below the radar altimeter bands (4.2– to 4.4 GHz), so theres no interference. But in the U
Re: (Score:2)
I hope the 5G license holders that are affected by this sue.
Or perhaps they will realize that stacking the FCC with telecom insiders and then gaming the system to get their grubby little hands on as much bandwidth as possible didn't work out. And they can just tuck their tails between their legs and slink away in shame.
Re: (Score:2)
No, sorry, thats a bullshit thing to say.
The FCC has a job, the FAA doesn't get to override the FCC on matters delegated to the FCC.
Even if the FCC is stacked with industry insiders, the FCC did its job and carried out its duties assigned to it by Congress and the Executive. The 5G license holders should be suing the FCC and the FAA.
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC has a job, the FAA doesn't get to override the FCC on matters delegated to the FCC.
But this is a matter delegated to the FAA [slashdot.org]. So they can say 'No' and throw it back over the fence for the FCC to solve.
Re: (Score:2)
You can however, prove positives: