In late 2021, headlines warned of imminent danger to the aviation industry as cell phone companies prepared to upgrade to 5G.
But why did the upgrade create such an emergency and foster such fear? It’s a question many in the aviation industry have asked.
Providing some answers — and a fascinating look at how the FCC and FAA operate — is a new story from ProPublica, “Inside the Government Fiasco That Nearly Closed the U.S. Air System.”
It’s a long read, but well worth it as it lays out the problematic history of 5G expansion, while pointing out that the problems still haven’t been solved, even as another deadline looms.
From the story: “The upgrade to 5G was supposed to bring a paradise of speedy wireless. But a chaotic process under the Trump administration, allowed to fester by the Biden administration, turned it into an epic disaster. The problems haven’t been solved…and a deadline looms: Verizon and AT&T have made no commitment to extend their ‘voluntary’ restrictions beyond July 5. And this may not be the last such battle, either: In December 2023, T-Mobile and other wireless companies will be free to fire up a new patch of C-band, even closer to the altimeter frequency. At that point, 5G will be operating near hundreds of additional airports.”
This is a bit ridiculous. if the altimeters in the aircraft can be affected by frequencies outside of their assigned band then they are a defective design and need to be replaced immediately. it is not the fault of the telecom companies that airliners are operating with poorly designed equipment and they should not be financially responsible.
the only way this would be different would be if the FCC has reduced the white space between bandwidths used to avoid interference.
No, this section of the frequency was assigned to the radar altimeters. The guard section of the frequency band was sold off by the government for (pick your choice: money, pressure, politics, etc). the telecom companies have stated there should be no problem even though tests indicated otherwise. In europe there is no problem since the telecom equipment is a different design. As it stands now if the telecom operate a normal 5G tower on approach then radar altimeters cannot be used. There is a work around where the telecoms must operate at lower power and some other restrictions. They did cross their heart;-)
the radar altemeters are assigned a frequency band between 4.2-4.4 GHz. the 5g networks operate 3.7-3.98 GHz. If a 0.22 GHz guard band between them is not enough to prevent bleed over then one of the two systems is not designed tight enough. Which one is it? I found an article in Aviation today that states that it is the radar altimeter tolerance mask that extends into the 5g frequency band. this seems to me to be an excessive band that it occupies. Unless the FAA was promised a larger guard frequency in writing from the FCC they don’t have a leg to stand on and I have yet to see anyone show that the FAA or radar altimeter manufactures were promised a larger guard frequency. In my opinion the radar altimeter manufactures should be responsible for modifying the radar altimeters to meet spec. unfortunately if any of them are out of business whoever has the defective RA is toast.
They were promised it back before there were even cell phones, but promises are made to be broken. I say this the third and last time. The problem only exists in the US because of the way it is implemented. Everywhere else has no problem with 5G and the same radar altimeters.
Everyone else implemented 5G differently. Their antennas are oriented 90 degrees to ours and the power is lower.
why is it only the usa has this perceived issue . it sounds very political. the required equipment is available for aircraft and is being used else where in the world which allows all industries to be working in harmony. a bit of leadership and direction in the usa government could help.
I’m a Navy contractor who’s in the middle of this on a platform… it’s called a band pass filter people.
Dial down the chicken little a bit and this is a solvable problem.