[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)