exFWAOONW wrote:

two things I see here:
1. How can the FCC justify profits of a few over the potential safety of many? Who do they work for? Certainly not the average American who flies once in a while. Just because there might be more end users than fliers, doesn't tip the balance in their favor.
2. what about prior rights? Someone earlier mentioned the issue of the house with the single-pane windows next to the neighbor with a loud sound system. Well, to cite a real-world example, anyone remember all the lawsuits by the people who bought cheap houses next to the airport? The aviation industry (anyone who buys a ticket) were forced to pay for the noise insulation upgrades. Not the homeowner with the bad insulation. So why should the aviation industry pay for the problem created by the new guy setting up a transmitter in a sensitive area?

c933103 wrote:

exFWAOONW wrote:

two things I see here:
1. How can the FCC justify profits of a few over the potential safety of many? Who do they work for? Certainly not the average American who flies once in a while. Just because there might be more end users than fliers, doesn't tip the balance in their favor.
2. what about prior rights? Someone earlier mentioned the issue of the house with the single-pane windows next to the neighbor with a loud sound system. Well, to cite a real-world example, anyone remember all the lawsuits by the people who bought cheap houses next to the airport? The aviation industry (anyone who buys a ticket) were forced to pay for the noise insulation upgrades. Not the homeowner with the bad insulation. So why should the aviation industry pay for the problem created by the new guy setting up a transmitter in a sensitive area?

As indicated in previous posts, there are still 200MHz guard band between aviation's radio altimeter, and those new 5G bands that mobile carriers are going to use, and all parties deemed it more than enough back then. To the telecommunication industry, such complain despite the existence of guard band is akin to Indian farmer complaining Concorde noise affecting the health and value of sheep in their farm, and doesn't appears to be reasonable.
-----
http://blogofmobile.com/article/131017
Japan have already started approving installation of equipment and operation of 5G at 4000-4100 MHz frequency band, since 2020, and this band is closer to radio altimeter's frequency than those frequency bands to be used by the US operators, being below 4000 MHz. Did airlines in the US do anything special when they fly into Japan to prevent their aircraft radio altimeter from malfunctioning? What make aircraft within US so special that they will be affected when flying domestically but isn't facing problems when flying overseas?

kalvado wrote:

I suspect newer long haul frames have newer avionics packages. Well, if 486 processor in ALA-52B for 777 qualifies as "newer"

Revelation wrote:

kalvado wrote:

I suspect newer long haul frames have newer avionics packages. Well, if 486 processor in ALA-52B for 777 qualifies as "newer"

It's really not about the processor, right? It's more about strong adjacent signals causing aliases in band or desensitizing the receiver. A lot of this depends on the details of the RADALT's design, but without knowing the specifics, most of the problems are more in the analog domain rather than the digital so the processor's age isn't likely to be an important factor.

Throughout the TWG-3 process and in the comment process on the draft RTCA report, the wireless industry repeatedly requested access to the list of tested altimeters and the underlying AVSI test data....
Aviation stakeholders, however, declined to provide altimeter information, stating:
“RTCA SC-239 received summary data from AVSI and is not able to provide individual altimeter performance data.”12 In TWG-3 discussions, CTIA was told that AVSI’s confidentiality agreements with altimeter manufacturers did not permit them to disclose the identity of altimeters and the underlying test data, even in an anonymized fashion.

kalvado wrote:

Revelation wrote:

kalvado wrote:

I suspect newer long haul frames have newer avionics packages. Well, if 486 processor in ALA-52B for 777 qualifies as "newer"

It's really not about the processor, right? It's more about strong adjacent signals causing aliases in band or desensitizing the receiver. A lot of this depends on the details of the RADALT's design, but without knowing the specifics, most of the problems are more in the analog domain rather than the digital so the processor's age isn't likely to be an important factor.

It's really about decay of professional ethics and engineering skill.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1027530485 ... 0Parte.pdf

Throughout the TWG-3 process and in the comment process on the draft RTCA report, the wireless industry repeatedly requested access to the list of tested altimeters and the underlying AVSI test data....
Aviation stakeholders, however, declined to provide altimeter information, stating:
“RTCA SC-239 received summary data from AVSI and is not able to provide individual altimeter performance data.”12 In TWG-3 discussions, CTIA was told that AVSI’s confidentiality agreements with altimeter manufacturers did not permit them to disclose the identity of altimeters and the underlying test data, even in an anonymized fashion.

How about bankrupting Honeywell over this crap?

Revelation wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Revelation wrote:

It's really not about the processor, right? It's more about strong adjacent signals causing aliases in band or desensitizing the receiver. A lot of this depends on the details of the RADALT's design, but without knowing the specifics, most of the problems are more in the analog domain rather than the digital so the processor's age isn't likely to be an important factor.

It's really about decay of professional ethics and engineering skill.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1027530485 ... 0Parte.pdf

Throughout the TWG-3 process and in the comment process on the draft RTCA report, the wireless industry repeatedly requested access to the list of tested altimeters and the underlying AVSI test data....
Aviation stakeholders, however, declined to provide altimeter information, stating:
“RTCA SC-239 received summary data from AVSI and is not able to provide individual altimeter performance data.”12 In TWG-3 discussions, CTIA was told that AVSI’s confidentiality agreements with altimeter manufacturers did not permit them to disclose the identity of altimeters and the underlying test data, even in an anonymized fashion.

How about bankrupting Honeywell over this crap?

Interesting. I will say that in my previous engineering gig the busiest guy in the company was the one balding guy who really understood RF. I always wondered why the company didn't give him his own staff of assistants to do the grunt work. Pretty much every project in the building needed his support.

exFWAOONW wrote:

two things I see here:
1. How can the FCC justify profits of a few over the potential safety of many? Who do they work for? Certainly not the average American who flies once in a while. Just because there might be more end users than fliers, doesn't tip the balance in their favor.
2. what about prior rights? Someone earlier mentioned the issue of the house with the single-pane windows next to the neighbor with a loud sound system. Well, to cite a real-world example, anyone remember all the lawsuits by the people who bought cheap houses next to the airport? The aviation industry (anyone who buys a ticket) were forced to pay for the noise insulation upgrades. Not the homeowner with the bad insulation. So why should the aviation industry pay for the problem created by the new guy setting up a transmitter in a sensitive area?

N47 wrote:

sadde wrote:

As someone in frequent contact with the FAA on both related and totally unrelated air carrier matters it’s evident to me that leadership at the DOT and FAA are asleep at the wheel at best, and non existent at worst. Sure, the FCC represents profit hungry companies, but it’s 2022, cmon. These standards have been anticipated for years and the FAA just now wakes up to them? Completely inept leadership on the DOT/FAA side.

As someone is in even more frequent contact with the FAA i have to disagree. While i do agree that there are some leadership and staffing challanges that the agency faces, its not as bad as you are making out to be. There is a lot of behind the scene work that the agency is doing amongst its various offices regarding this issue that members of the public are just not privy too.

Regarding this issue, the FAA/DOT do not have the authority over these frequencies to enforce or do anything, that power lies with the FCC. The only thing they can do near term is put out ACs ADs raise approach minima put out NOTAMs.

In hindsight, the agency could have potentially required more robust equipment (steeper filters etc.) from manufacturers in the past so we wouldn’t have run into this issue but then the manufacturers would have complained that requirements are too tough. Who would have known in the past what the spectral landscape would be like today.

Long term, the RA system can be modified to make
It more immune to interference perhaps using multiple pulses to do the ranging similar to how DMEs use 2 pulses instead of 1. That would be a major effort though not trivial.

The Federal Aviation Administration tentatively agreed not to seek any more 5G delays from AT&T and Verizon, potentially ending a battle over the aviation industry's unproven claim that 5G transmissions on C-Band frequencies will interfere with airplane altimeters.

USAirKid wrote:

Looks like there is a resolution to this issue:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/202 ... d-verizon/

The Federal Aviation Administration tentatively agreed not to seek any more 5G delays from AT&T and Verizon, potentially ending a battle over the aviation industry's unproven claim that 5G transmissions on C-Band frequencies will interfere with airplane altimeters.

The deal incorporates voluntary commitments that AT&T and Verizon previously made, including "C-Band radio exclusion zones" around airports for six months. The aviation industry will give carriers "a list of no more than 50 priority airports" where the exclusion zones will apply.

AT&T and Verizon will provide data on base stations, operating characteristics, and planned deployment locations. They will also "continue to work in good faith with aviation stakeholders to support the technical assessment of individual altimeters and airport environments," the deal says. The FAA previously said it "will safely expedite the approvals of Alternate Means of Compliance (AMOCs) for operators with high-performing radio altimeters to operate at those airports," signaling that airlines may already be using altimeters that can co-exist with C-Band transmissions.
Airlines threatened mass flight cancellations

AT&T and Verizon's C-Band spectrum licenses are for the frequencies from 3.7 GHz to 3.98 GHz, but the companies don't plan to deploy between 3.8 GHZ and 3.98 GHz until 2023. The radio altimeters used to determine airplane altitudes rely on spectrum from 4.2 GHz to 4.4 GHz.

USAirKid wrote:

exFWAOONW wrote:

two things I see here:
1. How can the FCC justify profits of a few over the potential safety of many? Who do they work for? Certainly not the average American who flies once in a while. Just because there might be more end users than fliers, doesn't tip the balance in their favor.
2. what about prior rights? Someone earlier mentioned the issue of the house with the single-pane windows next to the neighbor with a loud sound system. Well, to cite a real-world example, anyone remember all the lawsuits by the people who bought cheap houses next to the airport? The aviation industry (anyone who buys a ticket) were forced to pay for the noise insulation upgrades. Not the homeowner with the bad insulation. So why should the aviation industry pay for the problem created by the new guy setting up a transmitter in a sensitive area?

1. The FCC works for the American people, but their remit is to facilitate communication. Aviation safety isn't their concern.
2. I think you're arguing adverse possession/squatters rights, that airplanes have been using this bandwidth for decades, so don't they own it? However they haven't been using that bandwidth. A better metaphor is that you put a sundial at the edge of your property and it works fine because nothing is built next to your property. Then the property next to yours is sold, and the new owner follows the laws and builds a new building on their property. This building blocks the sun from reaching your sundial. Its upto you to move your sundial to a spot that it works, or just use a mechanical clock.

As for the noise insulation, I think there were some federal laws that came into play on this. In any case, it might've just bee cheaper to pay for insulation upgrades and/or buying out those houses than to fight or deal with the negative PR.

Revelation

exFWAOONW wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

exFWAOONW wrote:

two things I see here:
1. How can the FCC justify profits of a few over the potential safety of many? Who do they work for? Certainly not the average American who flies once in a while. Just because there might be more end users than fliers, doesn't tip the balance in their favor.
2. what about prior rights? Someone earlier mentioned the issue of the house with the single-pane windows next to the neighbor with a loud sound system. Well, to cite a real-world example, anyone remember all the lawsuits by the people who bought cheap houses next to the airport? The aviation industry (anyone who buys a ticket) were forced to pay for the noise insulation upgrades. Not the homeowner with the bad insulation. So why should the aviation industry pay for the problem created by the new guy setting up a transmitter in a sensitive area?

1. The FCC works for the American people, but their remit is to facilitate communication. Aviation safety isn't their concern.
2. I think you're arguing adverse possession/squatters rights, that airplanes have been using this bandwidth for decades, so don't they own it? However they haven't been using that bandwidth. A better metaphor is that you put a sundial at the edge of your property and it works fine because nothing is built next to your property. Then the property next to yours is sold, and the new owner follows the laws and builds a new building on their property. This building blocks the sun from reaching your sundial. Its upto you to move your sundial to a spot that it works, or just use a mechanical clock.

As for the noise insulation, I think there were some federal laws that came into play on this. In any case, it might've just bee cheaper to pay for insulation upgrades and/or buying out those houses than to fight or deal with the negative PR.

Revelation

USKid,

My point 2 wasn't very well articulated
Why should I have to move my sundial? It worked fine until you built the building that shadowed it. I have done nothing wrong, but am being punished (forced to move something) because of something YOU DID. You have taken something from me (enjoyment and use of the sundial) whether your building was legal or not. You are at fault. It should be up to you to supply the remedy, not me.
My point is if AT&T et al want to use band C they cannot stop/interfere with prior users, especially if it compromises flight safety. I can't believe I have to argue this point on an aviation web-site.

or example, the government commits to broadcasting the GPS signal in space with a daily global average user range error (URE) of ≤2.0 m (6.6 ft.), with 95% probability, across all healthy satellites in constellation slots. Actual performance is typically much better. On April 20, 2021, the global average URE across all satellites was ≤0.643 m (2.1 ft.), 95% of the time.

USAirKid wrote:

One of the questions I've been pondering is can GPS replace what radio altimeters have been doing?

From my brief research, they probably could, but only barely.

https://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/

or example, the government commits to broadcasting the GPS signal in space with a daily global average user range error (URE) of ≤2.0 m (6.6 ft.), with 95% probability, across all healthy satellites in constellation slots. Actual performance is typically much better. On April 20, 2021, the global average URE across all satellites was ≤0.643 m (2.1 ft.), 95% of the time.

But its probably a bit too tight. (And yes, GPS can do altitude as well in addition to latitude and longitude.)

CanukinUSA wrote:

?
The NTIA is an agency within the Executive Branch of the US government apparently run by appointees of the president at the time.

zuckie13 wrote:

The list of the 50 airports https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/airports-5g-buffers

I'll note none of the three DC area airports are on it. Fear not though, HVN made the cut even though I don't see BDL on there. Interesting prioritization there.

zuckie13 wrote:

The list of the 50 airports https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/airports-5g-buffers

I'll note none of the three DC area airports are on it. Fear not though, HVN made the cut even though I don't see BDL on there. Interesting prioritization there.

alpine1989 wrote:

Now performance impacts on the B787.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/faa- ... 022-01-14/

Continued Airworthiness Notification to the International Community - Boeing 787 Altimeter and 5G
CAN-2022-01.pdf

This message advises of the FAA’s ongoing continued operational safety activities related to 5G C-Band interference with airplane systems using radio (also known as radar) altimeter data during landing on Boeing Model 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10 airplanes.

The FAA determined anomalies on Boeing Model 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10 airplanes due to 5G C-Band interference which may affect multiple airplane systems using radio altimeter data, regardless of the approach type or weather. These anomalies may not be evident until the airplane is at low altitude during approach. Impacted systems include, but are not limited to: autopilot flight director system; autothrottle system; engines; thrust reversers; flight controls; flight instruments; traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS); ground proximity warning system (GPWS); and configuration warnings.

During landing, this interference could prevent proper transition from AIR to GROUND mode, which may have multiple effects. As a result, lack of thrust reverser and speedbrake deployment and increased idle thrust may occur; and brakes may be the only means to slow the airplane. Therefore, the presence of 5G C-Band interference can result in degraded deceleration performance, increased landing distance, and runway excursion

Revelation wrote:

alpine1989 wrote:

Now performance impacts on the B787.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/faa- ... 022-01-14/

From faa.gov:

Continued Airworthiness Notification to the International Community - Boeing 787 Altimeter and 5G
CAN-2022-01.pdf

This message advises of the FAA’s ongoing continued operational safety activities related to 5G C-Band interference with airplane systems using radio (also known as radar) altimeter data during landing on Boeing Model 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10 airplanes.

The operative section reads:

The FAA determined anomalies on Boeing Model 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10 airplanes due to 5G C-Band interference which may affect multiple airplane systems using radio altimeter data, regardless of the approach type or weather. These anomalies may not be evident until the airplane is at low altitude during approach. Impacted systems include, but are not limited to: autopilot flight director system; autothrottle system; engines; thrust reversers; flight controls; flight instruments; traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS); ground proximity warning system (GPWS); and configuration warnings.

During landing, this interference could prevent proper transition from AIR to GROUND mode, which may have multiple effects. As a result, lack of thrust reverser and speedbrake deployment and increased idle thrust may occur; and brakes may be the only means to slow the airplane. Therefore, the presence of 5G C-Band interference can result in degraded deceleration performance, increased landing distance, and runway excursion

I wonder what the airlines and their insurance companies will make of this?

Revelation wrote:

alpine1989 wrote:

Now performance impacts on the B787.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/faa- ... 022-01-14/

From faa.gov:

Continued Airworthiness Notification to the International Community - Boeing 787 Altimeter and 5G
CAN-2022-01.pdf

This message advises of the FAA’s ongoing continued operational safety activities related to 5G C-Band interference with airplane systems using radio (also known as radar) altimeter data during landing on Boeing Model 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10 airplanes.

The operative section reads:

The FAA determined anomalies on Boeing Model 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10 airplanes due to 5G C-Band interference which may affect multiple airplane systems using radio altimeter data, regardless of the approach type or weather. These anomalies may not be evident until the airplane is at low altitude during approach. Impacted systems include, but are not limited to: autopilot flight director system; autothrottle system; engines; thrust reversers; flight controls; flight instruments; traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS); ground proximity warning system (GPWS); and configuration warnings.

During landing, this interference could prevent proper transition from AIR to GROUND mode, which may have multiple effects. As a result, lack of thrust reverser and speedbrake deployment and increased idle thrust may occur; and brakes may be the only means to slow the airplane. Therefore, the presence of 5G C-Band interference can result in degraded deceleration performance, increased landing distance, and runway excursion

I wonder what the airlines and their insurance companies will make of this?

zuckie13 wrote:

The list of the 50 airports https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/airports-5g-buffers

I'll note none of the three DC area airports are on it. Fear not though, HVN made the cut even though I don't see BDL on there. Interesting prioritization there.

kalvado wrote:

That "fault tolerance" must be an alien concept for some design organizations...

Revelation wrote:

kalvado wrote:

That "fault tolerance" must be an alien concept for some design organizations...

Don't set the bar too high, the current staff just got schooled on electrical grounding and is now working through shimming.

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:

Revelation wrote:

alpine1989 wrote:

Now performance impacts on the B787.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/faa- ... 022-01-14/

From faa.gov:

Continued Airworthiness Notification to the International Community - Boeing 787 Altimeter and 5G
CAN-2022-01.pdf

This message advises of the FAA’s ongoing continued operational safety activities related to 5G C-Band interference with airplane systems using radio (also known as radar) altimeter data during landing on Boeing Model 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10 airplanes.

The operative section reads:

The FAA determined anomalies on Boeing Model 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10 airplanes due to 5G C-Band interference which may affect multiple airplane systems using radio altimeter data, regardless of the approach type or weather. These anomalies may not be evident until the airplane is at low altitude during approach. Impacted systems include, but are not limited to: autopilot flight director system; autothrottle system; engines; thrust reversers; flight controls; flight instruments; traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS); ground proximity warning system (GPWS); and configuration warnings.

During landing, this interference could prevent proper transition from AIR to GROUND mode, which may have multiple effects. As a result, lack of thrust reverser and speedbrake deployment and increased idle thrust may occur; and brakes may be the only means to slow the airplane. Therefore, the presence of 5G C-Band interference can result in degraded deceleration performance, increased landing distance, and runway excursion

I wonder what the airlines and their insurance companies will make of this?

So what does this mean in practical terms for the airlines and for Boeing and is the 787 only affected model? No other model from Boeing or Airbus?

WkndWanderer wrote:

This Reuters article goes into more detail:

"Airplane manufacturers have informed us that there are huge swaths of the operating fleet that may need to be indefinitely grounded."

One area of concern is whether some Boeing 777s will be unable to land at some key U.S. airports after 5G service starts, as well as some Boeing cargo planes, airline officials told Reuters."

Does anyone know what is unique about the 777's altimeters or what it depends on them for compared to other types?

https://www.reuters.com/technology/excl ... 022-01-17/

Scoreboard wrote:

Am I right in thinking this is a problem specifically for the USA, because of the frequencies that have been allocated to 5G in the USA? 5G was rolled out in the UK some months ago without these problems.

WkndWanderer wrote:

This Reuters article goes into more detail:

"Airplane manufacturers have informed us that there are huge swaths of the operating fleet that may need to be indefinitely grounded."

One area of concern is whether some Boeing 777s will be unable to land at some key U.S. airports after 5G service starts, as well as some Boeing cargo planes, airline officials told Reuters."

Does anyone know what is unique about the 777's altimeters or what it depends on them for compared to other types?

https://www.reuters.com/technology/excl ... 022-01-17/

SEAorPWM wrote:

https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-major-us-airline-ceos-urge-action-avoid-catastrophic-5g-flight-2022-01-17/

Despite the clickbaity headlines, it looks like the industry is still in panic mode for Wednesday. If operations are affected even further, I hope the carriers have a case against these tech giants. This is not what the industry needs after the meltdowns over the last four weeks.

I have not heard any mention of the popular RJ types you see everywhere in the US also.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Here’s the FAA 5G website.

https://www.faa.gov/5g

Nobody is going to crashing short of the runway, either. They might not be landing, but not crashing.

airtechy wrote:

I'm a little surprised that the companies that make the radar altimeters aren't looking for a solution that doesn't require replacing the boxes .... maybe they are. As an engineer, my first thought would be a narrow bandpass filter to reject the 5G frequencies inserted in the coax antenna lead from the altimeter. Even if it worked, the question would obviously be who would foot the cost to test, certify, and build said filter.

danman132x wrote:

My opinion is that the cell companies need to drop this frequency. Do we Really need this 5G spectrum. Our cell phones work fine as is. 5G works fine how it is now, we can make calls just fine and have been for years, why now? So we can browse Facebook faster or watch YouTube videos on the go in high speed? It's ridiculous honestly. Wait until the first plane crashes because this interference, or flights are constantly disrupted. Better hope it's not rainy or cloudy the day you want to fly. Going to be a lot of canceled flights. I would expect no less from the American government. All about the money instead of safety.

WayexTDI wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Here’s the FAA 5G website.

https://www.faa.gov/5g

Nobody is going to crashing short of the runway, either. They might not be landing, but not crashing.

And what happens when they cannot land and run out of fuel?

kalvado wrote:

WkndWanderer wrote:

This Reuters article goes into more detail:

"Airplane manufacturers have informed us that there are huge swaths of the operating fleet that may need to be indefinitely grounded."

One area of concern is whether some Boeing 777s will be unable to land at some key U.S. airports after 5G service starts, as well as some Boeing cargo planes, airline officials told Reuters."

Does anyone know what is unique about the 777's altimeters or what it depends on them for compared to other types?

https://www.reuters.com/technology/excl ... 022-01-17/

Fault tolerance of logic. Think about this as altimeter going out if service on MEL. And looks like no dispatch without altimeter.
My impression is that technical difficulties at Boeing predate 787 and MAX.

WkndWanderer wrote:

kalvado wrote:

WkndWanderer wrote:

This Reuters article goes into more detail:

"Airplane manufacturers have informed us that there are huge swaths of the operating fleet that may need to be indefinitely grounded."

One area of concern is whether some Boeing 777s will be unable to land at some key U.S. airports after 5G service starts, as well as some Boeing cargo planes, airline officials told Reuters."

Does anyone know what is unique about the 777's altimeters or what it depends on them for compared to other types?

https://www.reuters.com/technology/excl ... 022-01-17/

Fault tolerance of logic. Think about this as altimeter going out if service on MEL. And looks like no dispatch without altimeter.
My impression is that technical difficulties at Boeing predate 787 and MAX.

It looks like all of the non-fly by wire Boeings have been cleared, do the 777 and 787 rely on a lower frequency, have a less resilient ADIRU or something compared to Airbus counterparts? It looks like the A340, A380, and RJ's haven't been cleared by the FAA either?

32andBelow wrote:

SEAorPWM wrote:

https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-major-us-airline-ceos-urge-action-avoid-catastrophic-5g-flight-2022-01-17/

Despite the clickbaity headlines, it looks like the industry is still in panic mode for Wednesday. If operations are affected even further, I hope the carriers have a case against these tech giants. This is not what the industry needs after the meltdowns over the last four weeks.

I have not heard any mention of the popular RJ types you see everywhere in the US also.

Against the tech giants? Didn’t the government auction the spectrum to them?

Also how was this never brought up on the years since the auction?

SEAorPWM wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

SEAorPWM wrote:

https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-major-us-airline-ceos-urge-action-avoid-catastrophic-5g-flight-2022-01-17/

Despite the clickbaity headlines, it looks like the industry is still in panic mode for Wednesday. If operations are affected even further, I hope the carriers have a case against these tech giants. This is not what the industry needs after the meltdowns over the last four weeks.

I have not heard any mention of the popular RJ types you see everywhere in the US also.

Against the tech giants? Didn’t the government auction the spectrum to them?

Also how was this never brought up on the years since the auction?

I've heard rumblings on this for about a year IIRC; it's now only going through the media cycle as we're at the deadline.

Like others have said, as an end user, I don't see the benefit. I surmise the real benefactors are data harvesting/advertising operations as a result of this rollout (hence term-dropping "big tech"), and it stings for me even more as I am part of the aviation industry and am fed up after 2 years of constant uncertainty.