AT&T and Verizon Reject US Govt's Request to Delay New 5G Services (politico.com) 84
"AT&T and Verizon on Sunday rejected the U.S. Department of Transportation's request that they delay this week's scheduled launch of a new round of 5G wireless service," reports Politico, adding that the carriers "instead pledged to take enhanced measures to avoid warned disruptions of air travel..."
U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and FAA Administrator Steve Dickson had asked the companies on New Year's Eve to put off Wednesday's launch of the new wireless service for two additional weeks while their agencies address concerns that the new signals could interfere with some types of aircraft equipment. Unless those issues are resolved, air travelers will face "widespread and unacceptable disruption as airplanes divert to other cities or flights are canceled, causing ripple effects throughout the U.S. air transportation," Buttigieg and Dickson wrote in their letter, reported last week by POLITICO.
The wireless carriers' rebuff is the latest step in weeks of an escalating standoff between the aviation and telecommunication sectors — a year after the mobile phone companies spent more than $80 billion to buy licenses for the 5G-friendly C-band airwaves at a Federal Communications Commission auction. The fight over the Trump-era initiative has drawn in multiple agencies and the White House, with airlines pushing for an emergency stay even after the FCC insisted that the wireless companies can safely use the airwaves...
The FAA on Sunday said it's reviewing the carriers' letter but added, "U.S. aviation safety standards will guide our next actions." Verizon and AT&T told DOT on Sunday that they will embrace even more extensive mitigation measures through July 5. But they outright rejected the idea of postponing the launch of the new 5G service. "Agreeing to your proposal would not only be an unprecedented and unwarranted circumvention of the due process and checks and balances carefully crafted in the structure of our democracy, but an irresponsible abdication of the operating control required to deploy world-class and globally competitive communications networks that are every bit as essential to our country's economic vitality, public safety and national interests as the airline industry," the two companies' CEOs wrote.
They said they want to keep working with the federal government to avoid "escalating" grievances from the airline industry "in other venues."
The wireless carriers' rebuff is the latest step in weeks of an escalating standoff between the aviation and telecommunication sectors — a year after the mobile phone companies spent more than $80 billion to buy licenses for the 5G-friendly C-band airwaves at a Federal Communications Commission auction. The fight over the Trump-era initiative has drawn in multiple agencies and the White House, with airlines pushing for an emergency stay even after the FCC insisted that the wireless companies can safely use the airwaves...
The FAA on Sunday said it's reviewing the carriers' letter but added, "U.S. aviation safety standards will guide our next actions." Verizon and AT&T told DOT on Sunday that they will embrace even more extensive mitigation measures through July 5. But they outright rejected the idea of postponing the launch of the new 5G service. "Agreeing to your proposal would not only be an unprecedented and unwarranted circumvention of the due process and checks and balances carefully crafted in the structure of our democracy, but an irresponsible abdication of the operating control required to deploy world-class and globally competitive communications networks that are every bit as essential to our country's economic vitality, public safety and national interests as the airline industry," the two companies' CEOs wrote.
They said they want to keep working with the federal government to avoid "escalating" grievances from the airline industry "in other venues."
The 5G bands are licensed exclusively by carriers (Score:3, Funny)
Seriously, this isn't that hard. The FAA is a regulator of the airlines, not telecom.
Re:The 5G bands are licensed exclusively by carrie (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure how you are to shield intentional radiators of RF used for measuring distances above ground. The equipment in question is the radio altimeter, critical for night time and instrument flying when landing in weather conditions affecting visibility.
I imagine a 5G smartphone with an appropriate app can handle that; just equip the planes with those instead of those old-fashion altimeters. Problems solved ... :-)
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot be serious. (Score:1)
Re: The 5G bands are licensed exclusively by carri (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
While true, I think this misses the point that there is conflict between spectrum allocation that was not thought out sufficiently and implemented appropriately to alleviate that conflict.
Like all things political, it's about where and how the power is allocated.
Big concepts statements like "unprecedented and unwarranted circumvention of the due process and checks and balances carefully crafted in the structure of our democracy" usually mean, "Oh s#*t, we aren't going to win this one."
Re: (Score:2)
While true, I think this misses the point that there is conflict between spectrum allocation that was not thought out sufficiently and implemented appropriately to alleviate that conflict.
Like all things political, it's about where and how the power is allocated.
Big concepts statements like "unprecedented and unwarranted circumvention of the due process and checks and balances carefully crafted in the structure of our democracy" usually mean, "Oh s#*t, we aren't going to win this one."
They said they want to keep working with the federal government to avoid "escalating" grievances from the airline industry "in other venues."
Really sounds like "we don't want to get sued cause we are afraid we'll lose. Please help us government, but don't tell us what to do or make us pay for fixes..."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I dont see how they would lose. They bought the license to use that spectrum. FCC spectrum licenses are age-old agreements of exclusivity. Why would the court invalidate them?
It’s not the spectrum, but the leakage into the a/c spectrum’s frequency.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IF the 5G towers were leaking into spectrum allocated to other applications, then they would be defective and need to be fixed. I do not believe that is the case here. Citation that the towers are leaking?
https://www.rtca.org/wp-conten... [rtca.org] Note: This was prepared by an aviation organization.
Re: (Score:2)
There'd be no issue with the spectrum allocation if the airlines had not decided to cheap out and buy dodgy equipment that bleeds out and operates on spectrum they are *not* licensed to use. This is 100% on them. The telcos should not be forced to give up the licenses they bought in good faith and abandon 5G when they built their own equipment to spec; just because some crooked execs elsewhere decided to boost their bonuses buying sub-standard kit.
Re: (Score:2)
If the airplane equipment is causing interference on them, then the airplanes are in violation of the FCC's authority to allocate bandwidth. If they are receiving interference from those signals that can cause a safety hazard, then there is insufficient shielding around the components and wiring, and the planes should be grounded until adequate shielding can be installed on the affected parts. Seriously, this isn't that hard. The FAA is a regulator of the airlines, not telecom.
They are on separate frequencies, and the concern is the 5G devices will cause interference on teh aircraft frequencies; which would mean teh 5g carriers need to fix the problem.
Re:The 5G bands are licensed exclusively by carrie (Score:5, Funny)
[bing] "Good afternoon, and thanks for flying with us from Dallas, Fort Worth to Chicago, Illinois. We'd like to extend a special welcome to a couple of our AT&T vice presidents in first class, who were a major part of the decision in refusing to delay their 5G rollout for a couple weeks while the aviation industry completed interference testing with cockpit instruments. So if we sideswipe a mountain or nosedive into the ground, you'll be able to tell your loved ones with your last text message who to sue."
"We also had to argue with them for fifteen minutes to put their masks on and smelled alcohol on their breath the whole time, before we were ordered to allow them on the flight if we ever wanted to be able to use our own cell phones again. We also upgraded them to First class to keep them from harrassing our valued coach passengers, just for reference. So sit back, relax, and enjoy your flight. Flight attendants, prepare for cross-check."
Re: (Score:2)
So if we sideswipe a mountain or nosedive into the ground, you'll be able to tell your loved ones with your last text message who to sue."
I'm sure the cell carriers actuaries and lawyers have decided it is no biggy, and if something bad happens they can just blame the government, but optics are important too, and they have willingly put themselves in a place where if there is actually a plane crash they will look particularly culpable in the public eye, and quite possibly in a jury's as well.
Re:The 5G bands are licensed exclusively by carrie (Score:5, Informative)
Most of the concern is actually that radar altimeters don't have sharp enough front-end filters to attenuate the 5G towers' intended emissions, and those will cause spurious distance detections. When the altimeters were originally designed, that part of the C band was only used for satellite-to-earth downlinks, so the power at ground level would be really tiny. So there wasn't a good reason to include a complex filter, which would need more verification and that would have a higher failure rate due to using more components. Then telcos wanted to blast kilowatts of power upwards at the planes from lots of new cell towers, which increases the risk enormously.
Re: The 5G bands are licensed exclusively by carri (Score:2)
They don't want to "blast kilowatts of power upwards." That would just be a waste of electricity. Cell towers are more like streetlights than searchlights, and this whole thing is a giant nothingburger.
Re: The 5G bands are licensed exclusively by carri (Score:4, Informative)
They absolutely do want to blast kilowatts upwards -- in particular, they have a limit of 62 dBm/MHz [lightreading.com], or a smaller number based on elevation above horizontal. That smaller number kicks in about 11 degrees above the horizon. Up to that angle, they want to transmit up to 62 dBm/MHz, which is 1585 W/MHz.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It is based on occupied channel bandwidth. I don't know exactly how 5G NR works, but for 4G LTE, the common channel bandwidths in the US are 5, 10 and 20 MHz, but only about the middle 70-75% is actually used. 20 MHz LTE uses 15.36 MHz of bandwidth. If 5G defines channels similarly, that would mean up to 24 kW of radiated power from each tower, spread across that 15.36 MHz channel. And the 20 MHz just lower down in the spectrum could have the same.
Re: The 5G bands are licensed exclusively by carr (Score:2)
That's not how spectral density works.
Re: (Score:2)
The best way to convince the Internet that you have no idea what you are talking about is to make a bold assertion without providing a single thing to back up that assertion. The lack of evidence and explanation speaks for itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Cell towers are more like streetlights than searchlights, and this whole thing is a giant nothingburger.
Sure glad the cell towers around here are usually pointed in my direction.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just poor filters. RAs by their nature are wideband devices. By filtering more agressively they become less accurate.
Re: The 5G bands are licensed exclusively by carri (Score:2)
Then their spectrum allocation should have reflected that.
The appropriate metaphor here would be a 400-pound passenger who is only required to buy one ticket, and who demands the right to spill over into half of your seat as a result.
Re: (Score:2)
Then their spectrum allocation should have reflected that.
It does. There is a reason neighbouring bands were previously limited to a certain type and strength of signal. There's a reason ITU-R M.2059-0 published a specification of how much interference the neighbouring band as well as the primary band is allowed to cause to radio altimeters.
The only thing strange is how the FCC managed to sell a licence that allowed exceeding not only the out of band limits but also the direct in band limits from spurious sources as defined in ITU-R M.2059-0. At present I'm not su
Re: (Score:3)
If they are receiving interference from those signals that can cause a safety hazard, then there is insufficient shielding around the components and wiring
That's literally not at all how spectrum licensing works.
Seriously, this isn't that hard. The FAA is a regulator of the airlines, not telecom.
Indeed, so it should please you to note that the regulations being discussed here are compliance with ITU-R M.2059-0, a telecom standard, not an aviation one and that simulations so far show that by licensing spectrum adjacent to the one in use by ITU-R M.2059-0 for 5G in the way that it was, the interference level is above that tollerated by ITU-R M.2059-0.
No need for the FAA to be involved anymore than to tell other people they done fucked up.
Re: (Score:2)
> > If they are receiving interference from those signals that can cause a safety hazard, then there is insufficient shielding around the components and wiring
> That's literally not at all how spectrum licensing works.
How is that not the case? As a licensee, both commercial and amateur, I am authorized to transmit on the frequencies that have been assigned/allocated to me. It is my responsibility to ensure my equipment is operating properly and not interfering with other users by transmitting out
Re: (Score:2)
It is my responsibility to ensure my equipment is operating properly and not interfering with other users by transmitting outside of my expected frequency and bandwidth.
You are not refuting anything I criticised. You said it is their responsibility to shield themselves. No that's not how spectrum licensing or allocation works. The whole point of licensing and allocation is that someone else doesn't interfere in your band. It's not up to you to protect yourself, in fact normally the process is to phone the FCC and they crack down on the cuprit.
The issue here is the FCC itself is the culprit for granting a license that exceeds the interreference limits from the ITU recommend
Re: (Score:2)
5G around airports doesn't roll out- people get lower data rate, perhaps can't load files as fast. Issue limited to incoming/departing corridors from airports.
5G around airports does roll out - chance it may affect backup altimeters, and in an emergency cause a plane to crash.
I'm going with #2, Alex.
Is the US _this_ poorly run? (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, I can imagine something like this happening in a 3rd rated banana republic. But in a supposedly 1st world country? Are there no actually working certification procedures and impact studies in the US before something like 5G is allowed to go ahead?
Re: Is the US _this_ poorly run? (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
This all happened when the Republican Bananas were in power.
As a banana I am offended by your association of bananas with Republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
It is the airlines who are violating the rules with their defective radio altimeters, not the 5G people. The mobile carriers have a legitimate complaint against the airlines for unlawful interference, not the reverse.
And its true, the airlines and the FAA should have thought about fixing the problem decades ago, not last week. Not that there is any hard evidence that their defective altimeters are going to be vulnerable to 5G transmissions in practice, as of yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but what about the regulator side? Is the FCC just looking away or was it completely unaware of this problem? Or were the mighty airlines not required to comply with FCC regulations in the US? Because you can be sure that a plane interfering with 5G in the rest of the developed world will get identified (maybe not on the first incident) and there will be a rather steep fine coming in to the owner and probably a prohibition to fly until this is repaired. You can also be sure that what planes typically
Re: (Score:2)
Any interference with neighboring bands is highly likely to be intermittent at best. These are not high powered signals. It is more likely that the FAA would prohibit use temporarily out of an abundance of caution than for 5G users in the vicinity of major airports to notice that much of anything is going on.
Re: (Score:2)
Is the FCC just looking away or was it completely unaware of this problem? Or were the mighty airlines not required to comply with FCC regulations in the US?
The mighty airlines' equipment wasn't interfering with the prior use of that band, and vice versa. The cellphone companies are now licensed to use that band. The airlines' equipment still isn't being said to interfere with 5G equipment in any significant way, although it seems likely to be be interfering with the signal if the reverse is true. But perhaps the encoding is sufficiently robust that this is not a problem in practice given the relatively small number of transmitters we're talking about (on the a
Re: Is the US _this_ poorly run? (Score:2)
I've you lived in the US for any period of time, you would know that the US is a 3rd world country masquerading as a first world country.
This is due in very large part of milking the shriveled red scare cow for every last drop, and creating scary images of people with a darker skin tone buying fancy SUVs on the dole.
Color me surprised! (Score:3)
Airlines vs Mobile Carriers (Score:1)
Airlines to govt: 5G feels like making our aviation systems unreliable.
Also airlines to govt: we are canceling flights because we donâ(TM)t have workers.
Since people cannot travel, people have to rely on technology to bring them virtually to their destination. Hence 5G is doing a better service than airlines and I second them moving forward with their deployment. Let the airlines to figure out how to improve their systems around something that is working, while they are not.
ok, but... (Score:2)
Why are the DoT and FAA asking AT&T and Verizon to do this? Parts of the US government are approaching private companies, hat in hand, asking for a favor, when those private companies are only allowed to exist and do business and make use of the radio spectrum in question, in the first place, at the pleasure of the United States Government? Screw that.
What should be happing? The parts of the US government worried about this should be going to the parts of the US government in charge of this and aski
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ok, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. This is a pissing match between the FAA and the FCC, and the FAA is losing, because the facts are not in its favor. So it's trying an end run by appealing to the Secretary of Transportation, and Buttegieg is going along with the farce for no obvious reason.
The FAA still has egg on its face from the 737 MAX fiasco, and seems to be trying to overcompensate.
Re: (Score:2)
That makes a lot of sense. So the FCC knows how things actually are and _has_ done its due diligence, are but the FAA tries to piss in its pool and thereby is heaping more egg on its face. The request for 2 more weeks does sound like something from a 3rd world country where nobody can do competent planning.
Re: (Score:2)
and the FAA is losing, because the facts are not in its favor.
100% of studies conducted about this have determined it causes an issue including studies in France (where they limited the 5G rollout near airports for this reason) and Australia (where the guardband is significantly larger in theory making interference less likely).
The fact are quite clear. There's an ITU regulation showing what tollerable level of interference RAs can be subjected to, and there's spectrum allocation and use. You can happily throw the two into a simulator and confirm the issue is real you
Re: (Score:3)
The FCC sees no issue, and has evidence, as the rest of the world has already enabled this with no unexplained aircraft issues.
The rest of the world like France which made a decision to limit 5G spectrum around airports for this very reason as well as increasing the guardband from the radio altimeters? Or the rest of the world like Austrlia which has an even bigger guardband compared to France and whose FCC equivalent has show with simulation that RAs are effected according to the ITU standards?
Is that the rest of the world you're talking about?
Question (Score:3)
What if a jetliner has an accident with loss of life and it's determined the accident was caused by 5G signals interfering with something on the plane? Does that mean the carriers will be held liable?
Re: (Score:2)
What if a jetliner has an accident with loss of life and it's determined the accident was caused by 5G signals interfering with something on the plane? Does that mean the carriers will be held liable?
Maybe. It's also possible that the airline could be held liable for not upgrading / maintaining their safety equipment to properly operate on the spectrum for which it is licensed (and not be subject to interference from spectrums that are not licensed or reserved for airline use.) Apparently the concern is that old radio altimeters might not be as selective as to the frequencies they receive and could be subject to interference from adjacent frequencies that are now used by 5G equipment. Either way if an
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You need to put some serious asterisks beside some of your comments when you say stuff like “AF447 was caused by a design flaw by Airbus”.
AF447 suffered an iced pitot static sensor while in autopilot - the sensor issue had been identified months before and an Airworthiness Directive for correction had been issued. Air France was halfway through replacement on its fleet when AF447 happened. Established procedure for a sensor disagree state worked and mitigated the issue, to the point where neit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it isnt.
The checklists and procedures Airbus put in place for a pitot static sensor disagree *worked*.
The crew of AF447 did not follow the checklist and procedures - they stalled the aircraft instead doing something that was not on the checklist.
Boeing put something in place that could not be overriden (if you disengaged it, it reengaged itself, and also couldnt be manually overriden by control inputs) and never told the pilots (specifically, as this whole thing was to make the MAX look like an NG to a
Re: (Score:2)
If the carriers operate within their licence but that still causes a crash then the fault is not with the carriers. Mostly it would be with the FCC for issuing the licence. Possibly the aircraft altimeter involved could be out of spec and bring some of the blame to its manufacturer and maintenance but, because exactly this is a recognised potential issue, the FCC would still be blamed.
Even if the carriers are slightly out of spec the FCC would still wear plenty of blame because that's so foreseeable.
Re: (Score:2)
No. But the plane type may get grounded.
Re: Question (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What if a jetliner has an accident with loss of life and it's determined the accident was caused by 5G signals interfering with something on the plane? Does that mean the carriers will be held liable?
Only if the carriers are violating their FCC license by producing emissions outside of their allocation, exceeding allowable transmission power levels, or similar. It's the airlines whose equipment is receiving transmissions from outside their allocation, and FCC regulations don't allow for penalizing someone for someone else receiving harmful interference unless it's outside what you're licensed to transmit.
The airlines (and others in aviation) caused this problem by accepting equipment which wasn't design
Sigh ... (Score:2)
Agreeing to your proposal would not only be an unprecedented and unwarranted circumvention of the due process and checks and balances carefully crafted in the structure of our democracy, ...
AT&T and Verizon need to get over themselves; public safety supersedes democracy.
(I was going to say, "public safety trumps democracy", but thought that would be way too ironic.)
Re: Sigh ... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
public safety supersedes democracy.
And this is how you hand a country to a dictator...
Re: (Score:2)
public safety supersedes democracy.
And this is how you hand a country to a dictator...
In some contexts, you may be correct, but I don't think AT&T and Verizon's arguments meet that standard. On a fundamental level, you can't really have democracy without public safety, especially from the government -- usually supported by the government itself (like provided by the Bill of Rights). Dictators tend to protect their own safety, and that of their regime, in order to further their rule and control, over the public and their safety. I guess it all depends on what kind of safety you're ta
Re: (Score:3)
As 5G is active in a lot of the world (with zero problems to plane operation AFAIK), this seems to be political and not technical. Also, all respective equipment manufacturers will have run tests and will know whether their stuff is affected or not. I am not aware of any radio-altimeter manufacturers having put out warnings. Also, the FCC will have carefully looked at things way back.
This seems to be the FAA pissing its pants publicly for no good reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Ya, I don't disagree. Don't know why the FAA is being, let's say, "overly cautious" here, but temporarily suspending 5G, as 4G exists, seems better than suspending air travel ... :-)
Re: (Score:2)
If they would suspend air travel here, yes. But I rather doubt they would. Probably somebody at the FAA thinks they should be more important than they are and is pushing this.
Re: (Score:3)
As 5G is active in a lot of the world (with zero problems to plane operation AFAIK)
Correct: You don't know and are not aware.
The other countries that deployed 5G in this band ALREADY FORCED their cell phone carriers to make the technical concessions. Their cell phone companies had to locate their towers. lower their power output, and modify the radio transmission patterns near the airports.
That's why only the USA is affected by this. It looks like the FCC fucked up here.
Re: (Score:1)
I _know_ that. Are you saying these steps have not happened in the US?
Re: (Score:2)
If public safety trumps all, why wont the FAA ground affected aircraft until their radar altimeters have been fixed? Thats the issue, after all - the sensors on the aircraft are faulty and bleed into the 5G band, not the other way round. So where are the groundings of the aircraft?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't necessarily disagree, but there are alternatives to 5G -- like 4G -- while there are fewer alternatives to airplanes, so halting 5G deployment seems more reasonable than halting planes. :-) Don't really know if this a real issue or exists for another reason...
Re: (Score:3)
Grounding the planes is within the FAAs jurisdiction, and solves the problem ongoing.
Blocking 5G rollout means the planes dont get fixed. So those 5G bands will never get released because the FAA will always block their use.
Ground the planes and mandate a fix before they can fly again.
If the FAA win this battle, what happens the next time their lax regulations come into conflict with the FCC? The same arguments again and again, the appeal to “public safety - but not so much public safety that we will
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to read up on what's actually happened here. AT&T and Verizon are 100% in the right and justified. They bought the license to the spectrum in good faith and built their equipment to conform to said license. Some airlines, however, decided to cheap out and buy dodgy sub-standard radar altimeters that do not conform to *their* licensed spectrum. They bleed into and listen on spectrum they have no business using. It's on those airlines to fix their equipment, or ground the affected plan
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to read up on what's actually happened here.
[...]
Some airlines, however, decided to cheap out and buy dodgy sub-standard radar altimeters that do not conform to *their* licensed spectrum.
You might want to read up on what's actually happened here. It's the same airplanes in the other countries. They're not having problems because their governments forced the telephone companies to make the technical accomodations. Their cell tower locations and radio output (power and pattern) have been specially limited and restricted near the airports.
For whatever reason (FCC fuckup, it looks like to me), in the USA the phone companies have been allowed to build out their 5G towers without the airport safe
Re: (Score:2)
Try again. 5G in the c-band is licensed up to 3.98 GHz. Radar altimeters are licensed at 4.2 GHz and above. That's a 220 MHz gap, and its a lot more channel separation than exists in many other licensed uses. If the airlines' equipment were up to spec, 220Mhz would be more than enough separation to prevent any interference. But some airline execs bought crap kit that they're now worried will come back to bite them in the ass; probably so they could have a nicer quarterly balance sheet and pas their bon
Re: (Score:2)
The telcos are in the right here, and should not the ones to take the hit. The airlines need to fix their gear.
And yet, the governments of all the other countries where 5G has been rolled out disagree with you. The other countries that have started allowing C-band 5G (such as Canada, France, Australia) all put restrictions and special requirements (such as lower power) on the 5G cell towers near the airports. That was part of the deal for allowing 5G infrastructure.
Why the US government has fucked this up and let it come to a crisis point is a good question. All the other countries have been on top of this from the
Re: (Score:2)
Or it's both.
The airlines are using shitty gear and the governments of the world are keeping them from taking the economic hit of downing all planes and retrofitting them with working gear.
How hard is this to test? (Score:5, Interesting)
Get some test equipment from the carriers, get some test planes from airlines, flip them both on and see if anything happens. If yes, then you can talk about potential measures to mitigate and fix the issue. If no, there's no problem, so wireless carriers can go ahead as planned.
Reminds me of the saying: A lack of planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on mine.
Re:How hard is this to test? (Score:5, Informative)
Get some test equipment from the carriers, get some test planes from airlines, flip them both on and see if anything happens. If yes, then you can talk about potential measures to mitigate and fix the issue. If no, there's no problem, so wireless carriers can go ahead as planned.
Reminds me of the saying: A lack of planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on mine.
This was already done a while ago, and the answer is: Yes, it's an issue. This is not some surprise out of left field. That's why all the other countries that have started allowing C-band 5G (such as Canada, France, Australia) all put restrictions and special requirements (such as lower power) on the 5G cell towers near the airports. That was part of their deal for allowing 5G infrastructure.
Why the US government has fucked this up and let it come to a crisis point is a good question. All the other countries have been on top of this from the beginning and are therefore not having a problem. It's the same airplanes (same models, and also of course the actual same airplanes) in all the countries -- the difference is the phone companies and how the government allowed them to roll out their 5G.
$80 Billion is alot of money to fix problems (Score:1)
T.S. (Score:2)
I hate the telecom companies as much as the next guy, and I have no need for 5G. But, they have sunk a lot of money into it. The aviation folks needed to speak up a LONG time ago. Too late now, unless you want to compensate the telecoms in the many billions, and don't put that on the taxpayer neither, bro.
Wherefore FCC (Score:1)
Really TelCos? (Score:2)
Popcorn, please.
Waiting for thee first fully loaded jetliner goes down after a mysterious system malfunction. Hope your lawyer critters are on speed dial.