4 ms·

Assuming 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 cautiou

Assuming 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 ago
5G 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 ago
It'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 ago
  Your 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."
  - p_l 5y ago
    It's a compromise, and flight crew does try to use it this way. That said, consumer devices were regularly found to radiate in all kinds of crazy bands, and would not pass requirements for non-interference in aviation, but pass for home/office environment. The planes where you have wifi internet etc. are certified that they won't have issues with home/office rated equipment. Aviation is really a different regulatory domain and a lot of stuff was designed with the idea that there aren't hundreds of unknowable quality transceivers active in the passenger/cargo area. P.S. The uncompromising option is to pack sedated passengers in pods in racks, and believe me, it's not that uncommon dream among the flight crews.
    - SOLAR_FIELDS 5y ago
      As someone who has regularly done transatlantic flights I would love the sedated pod in a rack option as a passenger. Actually, in general I would prefer that option to awake in nearly every passenger flight scenario.
      - p_l 5y ago
        Hear, hear. I generally am lucky enough on shorter flights to fall asleep sometime around safe climb is achieved and wake up for landing, but transatlantic is a PITA.

zamadatix 5y ago

5G 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 ago

It'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 ago
Your 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."
- p_l 5y ago
  It's a compromise, and flight crew does try to use it this way. That said, consumer devices were regularly found to radiate in all kinds of crazy bands, and would not pass requirements for non-interference in aviation, but pass for home/office environment. The planes where you have wifi internet etc. are certified that they won't have issues with home/office rated equipment. Aviation is really a different regulatory domain and a lot of stuff was designed with the idea that there aren't hundreds of unknowable quality transceivers active in the passenger/cargo area. P.S. The uncompromising option is to pack sedated passengers in pods in racks, and believe me, it's not that uncommon dream among the flight crews.
  - SOLAR_FIELDS 5y ago
    As someone who has regularly done transatlantic flights I would love the sedated pod in a rack option as a passenger. Actually, in general I would prefer that option to awake in nearly every passenger flight scenario.
    - p_l 5y ago
      Hear, hear. I generally am lucky enough on shorter flights to fall asleep sometime around safe climb is achieved and wake up for landing, but transatlantic is a PITA.