Re: FCC vs FAA Story

[Scott McGrath <smcgrath () starry com>]

Here’s the problem

FCC ignored the rest of the world and EU’s 5G deployment  in the rest of
the world 5G base stations have half the EIRP of their US counterparts and
the antenna systems use downtilt so 5G coverage on the ground is better and
RADALT operation is largely unaffected except for helicopters in physical
proximity to a base station.

5G/RADALT compatibility is only a problem in the US because of how the
usual suspects decided to deploy the C band 5G base stations.

Had the US followed global 5G best practices we would not even be having
this discussion,  US carriers wanting to deploy as few towers/base stations
 as possible is the proximate cause for this mess.

As a result we’ve degraded Aviation safety and US has a poor 5G experience
compared to the rest of the world a worst of all worlds scenario.

I’m a pilot(with a radalt in a small plane)  and 5G user objectively my 5G
experience is worse than 4G speed wise and i have a top level plan and
because the areas ONLY 5G tower is near the only towered airport in my area
i can no longer rely on RADALT for approaches in IMC minimum conditions to
that airport.

Great job FCC i have poorer cell service and bad IMC conditions now means
diverting to another airport and this is New England where the weather
changes every 5 minutes and has done since forever enough so over a century
ago Mark Twain wrote an essay on New England weather.



On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 11:34 AM Stephen Sprunk <stephen () sprunk org> wrote:

> > On Jun 6, 2022, at 09:55, John R. Levine <johnl () iecc com> wrote:
> >
> > Five years ago everyone knew that C band was coming.  A reasonable
> response would have been for the FAA to work with the FCC to figure out
> which altimeters might be affected (old cruddy ones, we now know), and come
> up with a plan and schedule to replace them.  If the telcos had to pay some
> of the costs, they would have grumbled but done it.  If the replacement
> schedule weren't done by now, they could live with that, too, so long as
> there were a clear date when it'd be done.
>
> The FAA could have easily ordered testing to determine which RA models
> were affected and issued an AD prohibiting their use after a certain date.
> Once that data was in hand, manufacturers could start working on STCs for
> replacements and the airlines could add those STCs to their next annuals,
> just like they did for ADS-B.  Both would have a decent case for demanding
> that the telcos pay for it, and the telcos probably would have paid up.
> But that opportunity was wasted.
>
> > Instead the FAA stuck their fingers in their ears and said no, nothing
> can ever change, we can't hear you.  Are you surprised the telecom industry
> is fed up?
>
> Exactly.  The FAA wants more delays while they do the work they should
> have done five years ago, but sorry, that’s not how politics works.  The
> number of daily 5G users is orders of magnitude larger than the number of
> daily airline users, so the FCC *will* win this battle.
>
> Stephen
> PPL ASEL/IR