4 ms·
To add: if you ever read an FCC label on a device it says “must be able to accept harmful interference” or similar. So I’d argue the Boeing devices are the ones
by TheJoeMan 5y ago
To add: if you ever read an FCC label on a device it says “must be able to accept harmful interference” or similar. So I’d argue the Boeing devices are the ones out of spec, should be immediately revoked as out of compliance by the FCC, and be done with it so the masses can enjoy 5G in peace.
I believe no agency should consider downstream effects of applying the law, to ensure fairness. Why should Boeing get a pass but say an out of compliance robotic lawnmower gets enforced?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- willidiots 5y agoThat's a Part 15 label (see https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-15 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-A...) and it doesn't apply to avionics / radio navigation systems. (I do agree this is Boeing's issue to fix, 200MHz guard band is huge, Boeing needs filters)
- p_l 5y agoThat's the kind of label you put on a device that can fail safely from harmful interference, in SOHO setting. It totally does not apply to aviation systems, and FCC didn't apply any of the mitigations used elsewhere in the world when 5G deployment in 3.8-4.0GHz range was allowed (it's in limited use in UK, and with restrictions near airports in Japan)