That contributes zero to the discussion since:
- The article is verifiably accurate, as you would have discovered if you had bothered to read the thread;
- The BBC in general is one of the most dependably accurate news sources in the world.
Boeing & Airbus Afraid of 5G
- Thread starter frank candor
- Start date
That contributes zero to the discussion since:
That certainly used to be the case but most of their reporting now supports their own internal agenda!
I mean... why is that hilarious to you? Do you know something that the top engineers of the largest aeronautics companies in the world don't knowBoeing and Airbus are worried that 5G will disrupt aircraft electronics !
Yeah, I can see the FAA going over-conservative in their margins of safety. But, then again, that's partly why commercial planes in the United States basically don't crash any more and when they do it's an extremely remarkable thing, despite more than 5,000 commercial passenger flights a day in the U.S. Tons and tons of regulation.This letter to the FCC from AT&T and Verizon includes some interesting references that argue the same point - that the FAA stance is based on overly conservative assumptions, out of line with the rest of the world, and inconsistent with the lack of problems with existing installations:
Also, a shorter summary:
FAA forced delay in 5G rollout despite having no proof of harm to aviation
US delays even as 40 countries use C-band with no reports of harm to altimeters.arstechnica.com
Just once can a subject be discussed without members cajoling and belittling each other? If you don’t trust a news source, take the effort to do a little investigating and learning about a subject on your own.
This is a big money subject and you have industry giants on both sides of the fence throwing spears at each other. You would find better coverage if you could find true independent sources of information on the possibility of interference and possible solutions to avoid the problem.
This is a big money subject and you have industry giants on both sides of the fence throwing spears at each other. You would find better coverage if you could find true independent sources of information on the possibility of interference and possible solutions to avoid the problem.
Indeed! I mean, this stuff is being reported on by like... a lot of trusted independent news sources. I'm not a radio engineer (though I know a couple), I'm guessing most people here aren't. That's where good journalism comes in, and this topic is extensively covered. I don't know what people mean when they say they don't trust the BBC to report on US aviation regulation. What possible dog would the BBC have in the US aviation regulation hunt? Do people need to see it on OAN or forwarded to them by their cousin in a Facebook meme before they will believe a thing? We live in a very strange timeline.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/ATXK6XL2HNMPZDWGIYV72CO57I.jpg)
U.S. airlines warn 5G wireless could wreak havoc with flights
Major U.S. air carriers warned on Wednesday that plans by wireless carriers to use spectrum for 5G wireless services starting Jan. 5 could disrupt thousands of daily flights and cost air passengers $1.6 billion annually in delays.
www.reuters.com
Airlines Brace for Flight Restrictions in 5G Standoff
The carriers are taking steps to prepare for potential FAA flight restrictions when a new 5G wireless service goes live Jan. 5.
www.wsj.com
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
www.bloomberg.com
Boeing and Airbus urge a delay in 5G wireless service over safety concerns
The commercial jet makers have been warning that a plan to deploy new 5G wireless networks could pose a danger to vital aircraft systems.
www.npr.org
Aviation Concerns About 5G Will Take Years To Resolve
Enjoy Christmas travel now, but get ready for flight diversions and cancellations after the holidays. In preparation for the rollout of 5G wireless services on January 5, the FAA will issue new rules to protect planes' navigation systems and keep passengers safe.
www.forbes.com
FAA Chief Steve Dickson Takes On Fight Over 5G and Aviation Safety
The cautious regulator is at odds with the telecom industry ahead of next month’s planned rollout of new wireless services.
www.wsj.com
FAA Issues New Radar Altimeter 5G C-Band Risk Assessment Request to Aviation Industry - Avionics International
Several weeks ahead of the introduction of new 5G C-Band networks, aviation experts are trying to find a long term resolution to the radar altimeter issue.
www.aviationtoday.com
Articles linked here are decent.
Not all news articles have been decent on this topic and some are using hyperbole. In one example, my MIL contacted me recently asking how likely was it that the new 5G towers would adversely impact the autopilot on commercial aircraft.
It was long enough ago that I don't remember her source exactly but it was an evening report on TV. After conversing via email and explaining in detail what the the problem was and how it might impact actual operations she commented that is not at all how it was explained on the report.
I should not have let my cynicism of the media bleed through in my post. I was not trying to imply linked articles in this thread were of that type. I meant it as comment in general towards the media as a whole.
Indeed! I mean, this stuff is being reported on by like... a lot of trusted independent news sources. I'm not a radio engineer (though I know a couple), I'm guessing most people here aren't. That's where good journalism comes in, and this topic is extensively covered. I don't know what people mean when they say they don't trust the BBC to report on US aviation regulation. What possible dog would the BBC have in the US aviation regulation hunt? Do people need to see it on OAN or forwarded to them by their cousin in a Facebook meme before they will believe a thing? We live in a very strange timeline.
U.S. airlines warn 5G wireless could wreak havoc with flights
Major U.S. air carriers warned on Wednesday that plans by wireless carriers to use spectrum for 5G wireless services starting Jan. 5 could disrupt thousands of daily flights and cost air passengers $1.6 billion annually in delays.
Airlines Brace for Flight Restrictions in 5G Standoff
The carriers are taking steps to prepare for potential FAA flight restrictions when a new 5G wireless service goes live Jan. 5.
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
www.bloomberg.com
Boeing and Airbus urge a delay in 5G wireless service over safety concerns
The commercial jet makers have been warning that a plan to deploy new 5G wireless networks could pose a danger to vital aircraft systems.
Aviation Concerns About 5G Will Take Years To Resolve
Enjoy Christmas travel now, but get ready for flight diversions and cancellations after the holidays. In preparation for the rollout of 5G wireless services on January 5, the FAA will issue new rules to protect planes' navigation systems and keep passengers safe.
FAA Chief Steve Dickson Takes On Fight Over 5G and Aviation Safety
The cautious regulator is at odds with the telecom industry ahead of next month’s planned rollout of new wireless services.
FAA Issues New Radar Altimeter 5G C-Band Risk Assessment Request to Aviation Industry - Avionics International
Several weeks ahead of the introduction of new 5G C-Band networks, aviation experts are trying to find a long term resolution to the radar altimeter issue.
Until relatively recently, most people read newspapers, listened to radio stations, or watched network TV to get their news. There were different slants, mostly political, but news was news and if it was news that they liked or agreed with then great; if it was bad news or news that they disagreed with then oh well - stuff happens.
And then the internet broke that model completely, and basically destroyed the concept of objective facts. Now you can get the news that you want, all the time, just by going to your preferred social media site or website masquerading as a news site but simply peddling fiction to satisfy your particular taste. On social media you can simply block any dissenting voices. You rarely need to see, hear or read news you don't like, and if you do inadvertently stumble upon it, then just label it fake and move on. That part of the internet really has become an echo chamber of nonsense - confirmation bias gone totally beserk. And for people of this mindset, traditional news outlets, even the most impartial, are no longer trusted because they have the temerity to report on uncomfortable topics.
I cannot figure out whether it is predominantly greed, malice or ignorance driving this trend, but there is clearly plenty of all three involved.
To avoid getting accused of going off topic (or becoming political), I've PM'd you with evidence.
Verizon and AT&T are not very sympathetic on this one:
I can’t say I blame them. The airlines and aviation industry have sat on their back sides for two years. With COVID reducing the number of flights for quite some time there really is no excuse for not retrofitting aircraft with updated equipment.
You remember lightspeed internet trying to take over the GPS band and telling the aviation industry to be at the expense at changing all of that out? Not only that, but all GPS that anybody had. That was a long, drawn out battle. Who do these telecom people think they are anyways?
The telecom people think that they are businesses that legitimately bought a part of the spectrum, approved by the FCC, for 5G use. Telecom companies across the world have done the same thing, with no evidence of any interference with radar altimeters. So that's the problem - some segments of the aviation industry are asserting a problem with zero data as far as I can see, based entirely on some dubious theoretical modeling by one organization.
Seems like the FAA / government asked the telcos for another 2 week delay on top of the 60-day they'd already agreed to and got told, "Nope, we're pressing ahead with the agreed date for the roll-out". I guess they've had enough of the FAA trying to prove their point while they wait around with expensive transmitters sitting idle.
One interesting tidbit in the various articles on this - the telcos proposed to reduce the transmission power of their 5G transmitters to match that of 5G cell towers in France for another six months, which seems like they are at least admitting that there is some potential for interference here. Or maybe that's just a compromise to give the FAA time to find some more evidence for their claim? That's aside from the proposals to avoid putting 5G towers too close to airports, initially at least.
Either way, that looks like a good way to perhaps find a compromise. The telcos would obviously want to have as few cell towers as possible, and the US is a LOT larger than France, so maximising power makes sense. The FAA doesn't want powerful 5G transmitters on top of airfields, but can't really argue beyond the French power level deployments, amongst others, that are already active without any issues (so far). Seems like a set of airfield proximity distances with agreed transmission power levels, ranging up from whatever the French use to whatever the telcos want further away where pilots are not likely to need the altimeters would be a mutually acceptable solution, no? You could even do some trials at higher power levels when conditions are suitable to gather some hard data on the interference, or lack thereof, come to that.
One interesting tidbit in the various articles on this - the telcos proposed to reduce the transmission power of their 5G transmitters to match that of 5G cell towers in France for another six months, which seems like they are at least admitting that there is some potential for interference here. Or maybe that's just a compromise to give the FAA time to find some more evidence for their claim? That's aside from the proposals to avoid putting 5G towers too close to airports, initially at least.
Either way, that looks like a good way to perhaps find a compromise. The telcos would obviously want to have as few cell towers as possible, and the US is a LOT larger than France, so maximising power makes sense. The FAA doesn't want powerful 5G transmitters on top of airfields, but can't really argue beyond the French power level deployments, amongst others, that are already active without any issues (so far). Seems like a set of airfield proximity distances with agreed transmission power levels, ranging up from whatever the French use to whatever the telcos want further away where pilots are not likely to need the altimeters would be a mutually acceptable solution, no? You could even do some trials at higher power levels when conditions are suitable to gather some hard data on the interference, or lack thereof, come to that.
ianwood
Well-Known Member
Seems there's equal amounts of blame to go around. And plenty of blame for the gov't for failing to manage these issues far more proactively. Why are we right up against the switch being flipped with no solution? Did we learn nothing from LightSquared? (I actually consulted for LightSquared in a former life -- core network, not radio.) This is going to happen more and more often if the gov't can't deconflict issues between neighbors. Spectrum is limited and older technologies need to be adapted. Get used to noisy neighbors and play nicely. Easier said than done, I'm sure.
While it seems either side wants the other to fix it, I think the solution needs to come from both. I am not an RF expert but can't a rad alt design be modernized to filter out noise from adjacent frequencies or at least be smart enough to know when it isn't getting reliable results? Sure, that'll cost money. Conversely, it seems a rather big vulnerability if someone can throw off a critical sensor with a low-power RF signal. Similarly, can't telcos shape their beam more effectively to avoid blasting their signal into the air above? Do pigeons need 5G? Maybe drones do but certainly not around airports!
P.S. I bet this is going to give the 5G phobic conspiracy theorists a lot of new fuel to cross-pollenate with their whacky theories about vaccines, chips and Bill Gates.
While it seems either side wants the other to fix it, I think the solution needs to come from both. I am not an RF expert but can't a rad alt design be modernized to filter out noise from adjacent frequencies or at least be smart enough to know when it isn't getting reliable results? Sure, that'll cost money. Conversely, it seems a rather big vulnerability if someone can throw off a critical sensor with a low-power RF signal. Similarly, can't telcos shape their beam more effectively to avoid blasting their signal into the air above? Do pigeons need 5G? Maybe drones do but certainly not around airports!
P.S. I bet this is going to give the 5G phobic conspiracy theorists a lot of new fuel to cross-pollenate with their whacky theories about vaccines, chips and Bill Gates.
Last edited:
In some of the reading I’ve done while researching the 5G “interference” issue there was mention of the 5G antennas being able to beam shape to keep power at lower levels by using massive MIMO arrays. Telecoms are not going to use more power than necessary.
They're not going to want to deploy more cell towers than necessary either. The costs of the physical infrastructure and maintaining it is significantly more then the energy costs, especially if they are fitted with local solar/wind power generation as many towers in the UK now are. Also, the actual radiated power from a cell tower is pretty low in KwH terms - the bulk of the power consumption will be going on the networking gear and WAN connectivity, which will most likely either be fixed line fibre or a point-to-point RF link of some kind, both of which are pretty fixed energy consumers.
This is more about tuning the signal strength as viewed from above by adjusting the power of individual antenna so that rather than radiating power in all directions equally, the beam shaping would be used to selectively reduce power in the direction of the airfield while maintaining normal signal strength away from it. In (very!) simple terms, when viewed from above this might turn a map of the signal strength from a bullseye centered on the cell tower into something more like a cardiod, with the airfield in the reduced power zone at the "top" of the heart.
Again, it's just another way that the telcos could assuage the FAA's concerns - at their expense due to the additional complexity and admin of it. Ultimately, I think that's their point here - yes, they (undeniably and by their own admission) have technical options available, but why should they have to do that and incur additional implementation and operational costs if the FAA can't prove that there is a need for them to do so?
Verizon and AT&T Agree to Delay 5G Rollout After Previously Rejecting Regulators’ Request
Verizon and AT&T said on Monday that they have voluntarily agreed to further delay the rollout of their next-generation 5G wireless technology at the request of U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. The agreement comes after both companies on Sunday rejected a request by the government...
www.ntd.com
Now they agree to delay 5G rollout after rejecting regulators request.
Similar threads
