4 ms·

There really is no excuse for the FAA holdup happening currently. The same spectrum has been in use in European nations for a while now as their primary 5G band

by 310260 5y ago

There really is no excuse for the FAA holdup happening currently. The same spectrum has been in use in European nations for a while now as their primary 5G band. They have not run into any interference issues that would delay their rollout like this. It also further helps T-Mobile as the spectrum they've been allocating for 5G is in the 600 MHz and 2.5 GHz range. T-Mobile owns some C-band but it's not set to be available until 2023 regardless. AT&T and Verizon, however, will be relying on C-band spectrum for the brunt of their 5G capacity. Without it, their networks are a tiny sliver of 850 MHz and/or mmWave with very limited coverage.

aftbit 5y ago
Here's the reason that the FAA is currently attempting to block this. I'd love to see more real-world testing, and a commitment from the telcos that _if_ interference arises, they'll vacate the spectrum. Flight safety trumps greater mobile bandwidth IMO. https://www.rtca.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/SC-239-5G-Interference-Assessment-Report_274-20-PMC-2073_accepted_changes.pdf https://www.rtca.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/SC-239-5G-In...
- p_l 5y ago
  If you read into more detail, it's also easily seen that outside of Japan only few countries tentatively allowed business verticals in the 3.8GHz-4.0GHz range, it's just european "mid-band" overlaps 3.7GHz-3.98GHz that is proposed as a block in USA - and where FAA complains about frequencies closer to 4GHz (4.0 GHz to 4.2 GHz being radar altimeter range)
  - g_p 5y ago
    To add a data point, the UK makes available 3.8 to 4.2 GHz spectrum on a local basis (with some transmit power limits), nominally for "verticals" and private networks. Not aware of any issues with radio altimeters, but the power limits might help in this context too.
    - p_l 5y ago
      Might be also a case of locations being considered far away enough from established effective flight paths

by 310260 5y ago

aftbit 5y ago

Here's the reason that the FAA is currently attempting to block this. I'd love to see more real-world testing, and a commitment from the telcos that _if_ interference arises, they'll vacate the spectrum. Flight safety trumps greater mobile bandwidth IMO. https://www.rtca.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/SC-239-5G-Interference-Assessment-Report_274-20-PMC-2073_accepted_changes.pdf https://www.rtca.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/SC-239-5G-In...

p_l 5y ago
If you read into more detail, it's also easily seen that outside of Japan only few countries tentatively allowed business verticals in the 3.8GHz-4.0GHz range, it's just european "mid-band" overlaps 3.7GHz-3.98GHz that is proposed as a block in USA - and where FAA complains about frequencies closer to 4GHz (4.0 GHz to 4.2 GHz being radar altimeter range)
- g_p 5y ago
  To add a data point, the UK makes available 3.8 to 4.2 GHz spectrum on a local basis (with some transmit power limits), nominally for "verticals" and private networks. Not aware of any issues with radio altimeters, but the power limits might help in this context too.
  - p_l 5y ago
    Might be also a case of locations being considered far away enough from established effective flight paths