High Flying Politics?
Earlier this month both AT&T (T) and Verizon (VZ) agreed to defer the launch of 5G services on C-Band spectrum (3.7 to 3.98 GHz), a portion of the 5G spectrum that they acquired during the last auction, until early January. The postponement was at the request of the FAA who claims that the new service could interfere with altimeters used on aircraft This comes in contrast to the FCC examination and approval of the band, finding no evidence to support the FAA’s claims, making sure that a wide spectrum guard band is left unused adjacent to the C-band spectrum. That guard band is twice the width requested by the airlines to make absolutely sure the altimeters are protected.
What makes this a bit unusual is that the C-band spectrum is already being used in ~40 countries for 5G, with no reported altimeter problems, while the FAA recently stated, “Tick, tick, tick” in a Tweet, alluding to the eventual disaster they expect to occur, which has riled many, including a number of those normally critical of wireless companies and how they treat their customers. One wrote that even after the FAA acknowledged that it had no proven evidence of interference from C-band operation, it continues to use contacts in Congress to wage a battle against the FCC ruling, which stated that “…further analysis is warranted on why there may even be a potential for some interference given that well-designed equipment should not ordinarily receive any significant interference (let alone harmful interference) given these circumstances..”
While the FAA is creating a logjam for 5G, they have also released a bulletin this month suggesting that “radio altimeter manufacturers, aircraft manufacturers, and operators voluntarily provide to federal authorities specific information related to altimeter design and functionality, specifics on deployment and usage of radio altimeters in aircraft, and that they test and assess their equipment in conjunction with federal authorities.” In other words, lets upgrade those altimeters, although they also indicated that such upgrading could prove costly to the industry, which seems to be listening to its constituency rather than facing the reality that such C-band issues have been under review for the last 4 years. Those defending the FCC’s allocation of the C-band also cited a 2012 report by a White House advisory council that suggested methodologies for spectrum management that consider both transmitter and receiver characteristics because receiver (altimeters) constrain effective spectrum usage.
Rather than a battle between agencies for some sort of political cache, it would seem that if the US is in a battle for 5G dominance (why is still a question), it would seem better to work out such inter-agency differences before allocating and selling such spectrum. The aviation industry has been under pressure due to travel restrictions during the pandemic and is likely quite sensitive to any suggestion that costs might need to increase, but scare tactics are not the best idea for helping to increase consumer confidence about aviation travel. In the real scheme of things, the cost of a new and updated altimeter, although not necessarily needed, is likely far less than the cost of lobbyists….
What makes this a bit unusual is that the C-band spectrum is already being used in ~40 countries for 5G, with no reported altimeter problems, while the FAA recently stated, “Tick, tick, tick” in a Tweet, alluding to the eventual disaster they expect to occur, which has riled many, including a number of those normally critical of wireless companies and how they treat their customers. One wrote that even after the FAA acknowledged that it had no proven evidence of interference from C-band operation, it continues to use contacts in Congress to wage a battle against the FCC ruling, which stated that “…further analysis is warranted on why there may even be a potential for some interference given that well-designed equipment should not ordinarily receive any significant interference (let alone harmful interference) given these circumstances..”
While the FAA is creating a logjam for 5G, they have also released a bulletin this month suggesting that “radio altimeter manufacturers, aircraft manufacturers, and operators voluntarily provide to federal authorities specific information related to altimeter design and functionality, specifics on deployment and usage of radio altimeters in aircraft, and that they test and assess their equipment in conjunction with federal authorities.” In other words, lets upgrade those altimeters, although they also indicated that such upgrading could prove costly to the industry, which seems to be listening to its constituency rather than facing the reality that such C-band issues have been under review for the last 4 years. Those defending the FCC’s allocation of the C-band also cited a 2012 report by a White House advisory council that suggested methodologies for spectrum management that consider both transmitter and receiver characteristics because receiver (altimeters) constrain effective spectrum usage.
Rather than a battle between agencies for some sort of political cache, it would seem that if the US is in a battle for 5G dominance (why is still a question), it would seem better to work out such inter-agency differences before allocating and selling such spectrum. The aviation industry has been under pressure due to travel restrictions during the pandemic and is likely quite sensitive to any suggestion that costs might need to increase, but scare tactics are not the best idea for helping to increase consumer confidence about aviation travel. In the real scheme of things, the cost of a new and updated altimeter, although not necessarily needed, is likely far less than the cost of lobbyists….
RSS Feed