12 ms·
Boeing, Airbus executives urge delay in U.S. 5G wireless deployment
- onphonenow 5y agoThere 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.
- john_moscow 5y agoThat 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.
- nine_zeros 5y agoSounds like my current company. Devs have been complaining about how the tooling has become progressively worse but no one with a fat paycheck cares...so it doesn't get done...until something catches fire.
- coryrc 5y agoDoes your company offer fat paychecks for improving internal tooling?
- chmod775 5y agoDevelopers who make the lives of their peers at work easier are well-liked. The people who decide your paychecks typically don't understand what you're doing anyways, so I wouldn't worry about that.
- bluGill 5y agoSometimes. If you make a tool that has been in use for years - long enough that engineers who turned to management are now in senior management position remember using and liking it back int the day - then you can get a good paycheck to maintain it. Of course this assumes that the tool is still relevant 25 years from when you first created it. Note that this is about you creating and maintaining the tool, taking over someone else's tool might work, but is probably seen as a job for a junior developer. In some cases you can wait for things to get really bad and then be rewarded for saving the day. (I strong oppose this - a good engineer should see problems and fix them before they get that bad) You can spend 10% of your time maintaining tools so long as the other 90% has great value. Great value means you see the market need and develop the first prototype that demonstrates the idea works (then turn this over to a new team to make production worthy while you go on to invent something else). You can run numbers to prove that your tool makes a difference. (Some at Facebook can show hundreds of thousands of dollars saved as a result of their tools) There are probably others - but none are easy to get into.
- alexjplant 5y agoMany don't because that type of work doesn't directly and obviously drive revenue, doesn't have slick customer-facing UX, and isn't on the radar of product or management. For every shop that actually has their act together there are two that fall into this trap; from what I gather consulting and contracting places in particular are quite prone to this line of thinking since the distinction between billable and non-billable work underscores this further and leads to especially perverse incentive structures.
- JPKab 5y agoWorked in defense in a previous life. Spent a lot of time in DC and northern Virginia. Take any amazing organization that does great things, give it a bunch of money, and have the revenue stream not get impacted by failure. You get rot. You get IBM 1960 vs IBM the 2010s - present horror show. You get Ford in 1920 vs Ford in 1980. And this isn't limited to the private sector. It's a feature of massive organizations where revenue is divorced from success. The US Federal Government is an utter horror show. It was once an amazingly capable collection of efficient, nimble organizations. It could hire rogues and mavericks when needed, and was able to fire the desk-riders too. It's now a rotted-out shell. Success happens in-spite of, and never because-of, the organizations themselves. I always invite people to go and work with one of the US Fed contractors or agencies. Go look at their job postings. Look at the energy levels of the team members. It's somewhere between a DMV and a mausoleum. Ask yourself if you honestly think they need more money or just far fewer, far higher paid staff with the same or even less budget. Then ask yourself if these organizations are capable of understanding, let alone governing, complex domains.
- dougmwne 5y agoBingo. See also: many nonprofit organizations for the exact same reason. DC is a world unto itself.
- deeviant 5y agoWhen was the this golden age of US federal government efficiency?
- thereare5lights 5y agoYou probably meant this in jest, but a few projects come to mind such as the federal highways, the moon landing, the Manhattan project. I doubt we'd be able to do that today at at least the same efficiency.
- john_moscow 5y agoMost of these projects were driven by competition with USSR. I.e., push for results under limited resources. With globalization we have eliminated it and are now left to rot, splinter and wait until the competition between the shards of the former empire sparks progress again. Except, there's also China with superior morale, superior education and superior efficiency, that might have better plans for the resources left behind a fallen empire...
- ohmyzee 5y agoAny 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.
- morpheos137 5y agoI agree. It is too bad that reasonable, moderate conversation gets drowned out by the true believers and the conspiracy theorists fighting it out. I don't think 5g is evil but I don't see the technical or economic need for it. Replacing 4G infrastructure that is just a few years old and has plenty of bandwidth doesn't make much sense to me.
- andybak 5y agoWhat's the middle line on vaccines? Genuinely curious about your window of reasonableness on this.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- UncleOxidant 5y ago> The guard band is absolutely ridiculous at 220Mhz Wow. The whole FM radio band spans about 20MHz, less than 1/10th the range of their guard band.
- onphonenow 5y agoTheir overall guard is 200Mhz on each side, so 400Mhz total, and even WITH that guard they are saying they have interference. This is what makes so little sense to me. You should have an emitter frequency in the 200Hz range? sure, you sweep it, but you shouldn't need a total of 400Mhz for your guard.
- fxtentacle 5y agoTo me, the entire article reads like the airlines are using outdated technology but they don't want to foot the bill for updating it. That would also nicely explain why this isn't a problem for the exact same airplanes landing in Europe.
- AlexandrB 5y agoI 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.
- PicassoCTs 5y agoIts not the same 5G in the us. Its the 5 grapefruit wavelength standard. If you measure them differently, different standards may apply.
- firebaze 5y agoWe're talking of different bands. Like visible light vs. infrared or x-ray.
- onphonenow 5y agoActually, 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.
- p_l 5y agoAFAIK only Japan allows operation anywhere close to 4GHz nationwide, everyone else puts limit at 3.8GHz for nationwide licenses, with occasional location limited <4GHz in UK.
- gregmac 5y agoCan 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/2021-11-02/faa-issues-saib-5g-radio-altimeter-interferenc https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2021-1...
- onphonenow 5y agoThere 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).
- p_l 5y agoThere will be usually only one active radio altimeter, with center frequency around 4.3GHz.
- onphonenow 5y agoSo a guard band of 300Mhz then? What's weird is that I'd expect an altimeter to be on the order of .1 to 2MHz bandwidth max. There's just something wrong in the math here.
- drmpeg 5y agoRadar altimeters use frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) and the bandwidth is 20 to 170 MHz (the larger the chirp, the more accurate it can be). It's extremely difficult to have a 170 MHz wide filter at 4.3 GHz with a brick wall response out of band. https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/compendium/4200.00-4400.00_01MAR14.pdf https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/compendium/...
- pedalpete 5y agoHow did 5G get this far into deployment all around the world without the apparent issue of interference being addressed much earlier?
- formerly_proven 5y agoProbably 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.
- p_l 5y agoMost countries simply don't allow the frequencies FCC wants to approve.
- gormandizer 5y agoNearly 40 countries have already adopted rules and deployed hundreds of thousands of 5G base stations in the C-Band at similar frequencies and similar power levels—and in some instances, at closer proximity to aviation operations—than 5G will be in the U.S. None of these countries has reported any harmful interference with aviation equipment from these commercial deployments, as the Federal Aviation Administration recently confirmed.[0] [0] https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1103192305940/211103%20CTIA%20Ex%20Parte%20on%20C-Band%20International%20Deployments.pdf https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1103192305940/211103%20CTIA%20E...
- p_l 5y agoThe very nice weasel wording used tries to make it sound like 40 countries approved above 3.8GHz, but the further paragraphs explain that only japan did so, without going into much detail other than the low guard band. The FAA complaint is about 3.8-3.98GHz, and all other examples involve no frequency allocations above 3.8GHz
- gormandizer 5y ago
- stevemadere 5y ago[flagged]
- fredgrott 5y ago
- john_moscow 5y agowhile the comment above is a complete lunacy, it's very easy to point out that: * Chips need a power source. If it was easy to find one inside the human body, we wouldn't have so much hassle replacing batteries in heart pacemakers and other implants. * Sending/receiving radio waves requires antennae of certain physical sizes. Something that can go through a needle wouldn't really make it. Making these arguments is harder than pressing the "flag" button, but that's the only way of actually reducing the division in our society rather than furthering it.
- UnFleshedOne 5y agoI thought first comment was obviously sarcasm?
- john_moscow 5y agoThese days people are so out of touch with reality, that any bullshit statement like this may mean: * They are trolling/being sarcastic * They are testing you for loyalty * They are showing loyalty to someone else * They truly believe it (many people really do) If your entire context is a single post in the frustrated ex-innovators' community (pun intended), you just can't tell anymore.
- bastardoperator 5y agoThey're a day late and a dollar short. 5G is widespread in metropolitan area which tend to host airports. What's the actual deal with this?
- p_l 5y agoThe 5G you think of is not operating in certain frequencies that FCC wants to open for sale - in fact I found only one mention of nationwide "up to 4GHz" frequency use for 5G, in Japan, with one operator and AFAIK in limited use. UK has some location-limited licenses granted for internal networks.
- ineedasername 5y agoAssuming the concerns are accurate, wouldn't this have a very simple solution? 5g has a very short range, about ~1000 feet. So the solution, to be very cautious, is easy: just don't put a 5g tower within 1500-2000 feet of an airport. That aside, I'm highly skeptical of these concerns: for years pretty much all electronics were forced to be turned off for unfounded concerns. I remember having to turn off my CD Walkman on plane. Suffice it to say that in the 90's it has no wireless capabilities of any sort at all. Maybe there is some other turf war or $$$ issue here?
- zamadatix 5y ago5G comes in 2 parts, Frequency Range 1 and Frequency Range 2. FR 2 is the 24-53 GHz stuff often referred to as mmWave 5G where vast amounts of bandwidth are available but has trouble with distance due to atmospheric absorption and not being able to pass through pretty much anything solid. FR 1 is roughly 400 MHz to 7 GHz often referred to as sub-6GHz (6-7 is pretty much planned to be eaten by Wi-Fi 6E now) and travels much further, e.g. rural cells are often up to about 5 miles radius from the tower. The majority of 5G deployments at the moment are focusing on FR 1 which is more an upgrade to traditional service not the new type of service hyped by the media cycle. The C-Band discussed in the article sits in the middle of FR 1.
- p_l 5y agoIt's easier to get passengers to behave and not cause accidental danger during takeoff and landing by telling them to shut off devices and place them away. It's much harder to explain that the continuing reason is that during RTO or worse, a crash, your device can turn into deadly projectile killing someone by blunt trauma.
- jzwinck 5y agoYour projectile idea is unlikely to be the reason, because I am allowed to have a book in my hands during takeoff and landing, and I am allowed to have a Kindle in my hands so long as it is "off." But I am not allowed to have it "on."
- nrau 5y agoFor some additional information, the concerns that Boeing and Airbus have are around radar altimeters. These devices are used especially during landing scenarios, especially automated landing scenarios in low visibility weather. The radar altimeter devices that are in the belly of these planes use fairly low wattage power, and are easily overwhelmed by 5g base station equipment that is located on the landing paths of major airports. The concern is that 5g could interfere and render useless automated ILS landing for major airports. This concern also affects helicopters doing automated or assisted landing at helipads on hospitals and other more complicated landing scenarios. There has been extensive research and testing that led to this conclusion of concern. You can read more about the background from the independent body that did the investigation: 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... And here's a great in depth video explaining the concerns from an actual 777 pilot for a major US airline: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=942KXXmMJdY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=942KXXmMJdY
- munk-a 5y agoIs there a reason that this is a huge concern in the US while flights not passing over US airspace freely allow the use of 5G equipment including during take off/landing?
- jdavis703 5y agoWhat western airlines allow the use of cell phone radios during takeoff and landing? I’ve flown in over a dozen countries, and they all require “airplane mode” at those times.
- munk-a 5y agoAs a Canadian American flying Lufthansa from Vancouver to Munich direct I was amused to learn that so long as your flight isn't passing over US airspace nobody gives a rats ass about airplane mode and you can happily continue to use data and make calls (using a transmitter on the plane to relay signals I'd assume) for the entire flight including take off and landing. This seems to be an entirely BS safety concern made up by US regulators for who even knows what reason.
- p_l 5y agoTests in UK, Australia and Israel pointed at interference exceeding allowed limits, with an accident ("crash" in aviation lingo) being at least partially caused by erroneous data from radio altimeter (in 2009, different source of interference)
- dylan604 5y agoMy understanding was from the old analog days where the signals could actually be received while at altitude, however, the software tracking phone switching towers wasn't able to keep up with the speed of a plane so no billing could be applied to the calls. The digital signals are not broadcasting up any longer, so signal is not as useable. However, the BS excuse of "interferes with cockpit operations" was such BS they couldn't just say "just kidding". Urban legend? Maybe? Fun cahoots type of story though.
- p_l 5y agoUrban legend - even in NMT days, the antennas on cell towers were directional and tried to avoid uselessly radiating upwards. Good luck getting usable signal at any flight level of commercial flight. Even if you're low enough, it's not uncommon for calls to drop due to speed (in fact a common problem on higher speed trains, and newer cell networks do include improvements for high speed terminals due to that). The mobile phone is just the most common device that is required to have its transmitter shut down, and part of that is that what is fine for home/office environment is not fine in aviation environment (different regulatory domains et al) so the easiest way is to mandate shutting down all transmitters then whitelist certain kinds (2.4GHz stuff like Bluetooth tends to get a pass because 2.4GHz is unlicensed due to possible interference from airliner's microwave ovens)
- authed 5y agoI could easily do without 5G... 5G enables unwanted features.