Re: What do you think about this airline vs 5G brouhaha?

[Shane Ronan <shane () ronan-online com>]

Except that the FAA isn't claiming interference in their LICENSED band,
they are claiming interference OUTSIDE their licensed band. You can't squat
on a frequency and then expect the licensed users to accommodate you.

Shane

On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 5:06 PM Mel Beckman <mel () beckman org> wrote:

> Shane,
>
> Incorrect. Owning spectrum also includes the right to interference-free
> operation. And you imply that the FAA and airline industry has done
> nothing, when in reality it’s the FCC who has done nothing. the FAA
> sponsored extensive engineering tests that demonstrate the interference is
> a concern, and they notified all the parties well in advance. The fCC et al
> chose to do no research of their own, and are basing all their assumptions
> on operation in other countries, which even you must admit can’t really be
> congruent with the US.
>
> -mel via cell
>
> On Jan 18, 2022, at 2:01 PM, sronan () ronan-online com wrote:
>
>  The thing is aviation DOESN’T own this spectrum, they just assumed it
> would always be unused. And they failed to mention it would be a problem
> during the last 5 years of discussion regarding the use of this spectrum.
>
> Shane
>
> On Jan 18, 2022, at 4:25 PM, Mel Beckman <mel () beckman org> wrote:
>
> 
>
> Michael,
>
>
> Here’s a recent PCmag editorial on the subject, and it seems like many
> people want to put Internet speed above airline safety:
>
>
> https://www.pcmag.com/news/faa-goes-in-hard-to-kill-mid-band-5g
> <https://www.pcmag.com/news/faa-goes-in-hard-to-kill-mid-band-5g?utm_source=spotim&utm_medium=E-mail&utm_content=replied-your-message&spot_im_redirect_source=email&spot_im_highlight_immediate=true&spot_im_reply_id=sp_K16VHJZS_072HRXmNRXaBpGnEYhzHF9p_c_226CAR9Wh7cKB5nT7ZEk9jsnt4P_r_23YHCX47igC6D698mkyoaTHv1ke&spot_im_content_id=sp_K16VHJZS_072HRXmNRXaBpGnEYhzHF9p&spot_im_content_type=conversation&utm_spot=sp_K16VHJZS>
>
>
> This issue definitely impacts network operations for 5G providers, so
> makes sense to discuss here.
>
>
> Here’s a comment from a friend of mine who has been both a network
> engineer and a pilot for United Airlines, posted on the article linked
> above:
>
>
> *“As a pilot, I can tell you that landing in instrument conditions is by
> far the most critical flight regime possible, during which the radar
> altimeter reports are a matter of life and death. There is no alternative
> technology, such as GPS, with the required accuracy and reliability, to
> provide approach guidance down to the runway in zero-zero weather, which is
> what the radar altimeter does. *
>
>
> *The collective tech industry needs to admit that it made a huge blunder
> when it urged the FCC’s clueless Ajit Pai to “blow off” the clearly
> demonstrated FAA spectrum conflict. Sorry, passengers, but if you look out
> your window, you’ll see that aviation owns this spectrum and is entitled to
> interference-free operation. Replacing all radar altimeters isn’t going to
> happen in time for 5G anyway — it took more than ten years just to deploy
> anti-collision technology. So do what you should have done from the
> beginning: follow the FCC rules of non-interference to existing users, who
> have clear priority in this case.”*
>
>
> I tend to agree with him, and it looks like the 5G providers and FAA
> agreed last week to put some buffer safety zones around runway approaches
> at 50 major airports:
>
>
>
> https://www.cnet.com/news/faa-lists-50-airports-getting-temporary-buffer-zones-blocking-new-5g-signals/
> <https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/faa-lists-50-airports-getting-temporary-buffer-zones-blocking-new-5g-signals/>
>
>
>
> -mel
>
> On Jan 18, 2022, at 12:33 PM, Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com> wrote:
>
> 
> I really don't know anything about it. It seems really late to be having
> this fight now, right?
>
> Mike