[HN Gopher] Boeing, Airbus executives urge delay in U.S. 5G wire... ___________________________________________________________________ Boeing, Airbus executives urge delay in U.S. 5G wireless deployment Author : HieronymusBosch Score : 33 points Date : 2021-12-21 21:18 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.reuters.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com) | onphonenow wrote: | There is something weird going on here. Is this a turf battle | between FCC and FAA? Does FAA not really have tech experts | anymore? | | This process has been going since 2011, with lots of input from | stakeholders (the usual slow govt process). The FCC carefully | studies interference before opening a band up. | | The guard band is absolutely ridiculous at 220Mhz - I thought | this was a typo when I saw it. Looking at Boeing comments, Boeing | had requested a max guard band of 110Mhz and the FCC doubled | that. | | We have 30 - 40 countries already operating mobile services in | this band. I haven't heard of credible reports of interference. | | Finally, longstanding RF rules require that your RF equipment | operate in its assigned band. The fault here, if any, lies with | airlines and aircraft mfgs to update their equipment if needed. | That said, I doubt it's needed. | | So seriously, there is some weird FAA stuff going on now. | | We wonder why the US infrastructure costs so much. Instead of | doing some tests in the years that this was in the cards, the FAA | is now throwing up all sorts of roadblocks, just as biden gets | ready to spend $1.2 trillion on infrastructure. | | Seriously, if this is a real issue, have every airline land near | a test deployment of C-band, and figure out which altimeters are | so pathetic they need a 200Mhz guard band. | ohmyzee wrote: | Any conversation around the 5g rollout was colour washed from | day one. I assume that happened naturally but who knows really. | I have seen very very little informative conversation online, | mainly because it became something like the current vaccine | debate where the middle line is drowned out by the "believers", | and the "crazies". I'm not really surprised to see seemingly | routine issues go unnoticed until now. | john_moscow wrote: | That pretty well fits the typical mindset of the past decade. | Nobody wants to take risks and build shit, everyone is instead | looking for a noble excuse to get their share of money and | authority without actually doing any hard work. | AlexandrB wrote: | I don't get it. What difference does it make if US delays roll | out when many other countries are going ahead already? It's not | like Boeing and Airbus planes don't operate in China, for | example. | tssva wrote: | 3500-3600Mhz and 4800-4900Mhz are the closest used frequencies | for 5G in China. Much farther away from the frequencies used by | the altimeters than the frequencies causing the concern in the | US. In Europe the closest frequency being used is 3800Mhz. | Again much farther away from the frequencies used by the | altimeters. | PicassoCTs wrote: | Its not the same 5G in the us. Its the 5 grapefruit wavelength | standard. If you measure them differently, different standards | may apply. | firebaze wrote: | We're talking of different bands. Like visible light vs. | infrared or x-ray. | onphonenow wrote: | Actually, other countries (like france) did their own tests and | threw out the crap from AVSI/RTCA (who have been very shady | about disclosing their data). | | Japan and other countries do smaller guard bands, some let cell | service go within 100Mhz (ie, twice as close). | | This is really an indictment of the technical incompetence and | lack of planning (over 10 years) of the FAA. | gregmac wrote: | Can someone with insight into radio technology explain this? | | > The 5G network deployment in the U.S. starting on December 5 is | in the 3700 to 3800-MHz bands then later in the 3700 to 3980-MHz | bands. Radio altimeters use the 4200 to 4400-MHz band. [1]. | | Are these not sufficiently separated? Can this not be tested | easily, by blasting 5G frequencies at a bunch of different planes | in test flights? They've had like a decade to do this; I'd expect | something more concrete then "concerns about potential | interference" at this point. | | [1] https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air- | transport/2021-1... | jltsiren wrote: | It's probably more about the safety culture than the | technology. This is the same industry that grounded the 737 MAX | worldwide for almost two years due to some rare issues that | would have been tolerated in almost every other field. | | Because radio altimeters have not been required to tolerate | interference above a certain threshold within ~10% of their | frequency band, the assumption is that they cannot tolerate it | until there is something like a decade or two of production- | scale experience without any serious issues. Or until all | passenger planes have radio altimeters certified for the new | stricter requirements. And because the latter costs money, the | industry won't do it as long as other options remain. | formerly_proven wrote: | Those "rare issues that would have been tolerated in almost | every other field" are the root cause that killed hundreds of | people. | jorvi wrote: | Not only that, the issue was caused by Boeing cheaping out | on quantity of sensors, and then the 'there is an issue' | light was sold as a safety upgrade. And the reason this was | all needed was because Boeing wanted to escape having to | recertify pilots for a new type rating. | onphonenow wrote: | There is something weird going on at FAA / NTSB etc. | | In most radio applications a guard band of 220Mhz is absolutely | unheard of. | | You would do a guard at 10% of bandwidth lets say. On one side | you'd have 5%. | | So we are talking 1-2 Mhz? | | My understanding was planes already had 2-3 altimeters, with | guard band spacing of maybe 5Mhz (ie, planes already have | devices blasting signals at frequencies much closer than | 200Mhz). | stevemadere wrote: | It seems to me the much bigger issue is going to be those 5G | signals emanating from the chips installed by the covid vaccines | and all the passengers | fredgrott wrote: | does baseless mongering of miss-information belong here? flag | this idiot. | pedalpete wrote: | How did 5G get this far into deployment all around the world | without the apparent issue of interference being addressed much | earlier? | formerly_proven wrote: | Probably because there isn't any problem. Though it could also | be that 5G in the US is meant to use some different channels / | frequencies than elsewhere, as was done in older wireless | standards. | [deleted] | can16358p wrote: | Because there is no evidence of any interference. Boeing and | Airbus are requesting something without showing any evidence, | which could have been easily detected in a test environment. | onphonenow wrote: | Their views aren't even that logical. | | You already need multiple radar altimeters on ONE plane much | closer physically and spectrum wise than 5G. In busy airports | you already have multiple altimeters operating again closely | physically. | | Anyways, even if there is interference, it's actually boeing | that should fix their systems to operate within their | assigned band (ie, operate in the middle of the band, and | reject signals outside of band). This is radio 101 stuff. | bastardoperator wrote: | They're a day late and a dollar short. 5G is widespread in | metropolitan area which tend to host airports. What's the deal | actual with this? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-12-21 23:00 UTC)