Senate Takes Up Legislation To Hold 5G Network Builder Accountable

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

rv7charlie

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
2,379
Location
Pocahontas MS
The unfortunate truth is that the current bill really going to do any good if passed. We can be sure that Ligado does not now, and will never have enough legally 'reachable' resources to compensate 1% of the parties adversely affected.

And Rhino is correct; this has nothing to do with 5G as a technology. I'm connected to the interwebs right now via a 5G home internet connection that operates in the 600MHz band. No risk to GPS at all; it's in the same range as the old now-defunct analog TV stations. GPS is at ~1.2GHz & ~1.6GHz. The 'internet of things' 5G bands everyone's so excited about is up from ~24GHz to ~50 GHz; again far away from GPS. The whole issue is the particular frequency band that the FCC gave to Ligado, over the objections of the military and every other stake holder.
 

dog

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
578
The unfortunate truth is that the current bill really going to do any good if passed. We can be sure that Ligado does not now, and will never have enough legally 'reachable' resources to compensate 1% of the parties adversely affected.

And Rhino is correct; this has nothing to do with 5G as a technology. I'm connected to the interwebs right now via a 5G home internet connection that operates in the 600MHz band. No risk to GPS at all; it's in the same range as the old now-defunct analog TV stations. GPS is at ~1.2GHz & ~1.6GHz. The 'internet of things' 5G bands everyone's so excited about is up from ~24GHz to ~50 GHz; again far away from GPS. The whole issue is the particular frequency band that the FCC gave to Ligado, over the objections of the military and every other stake holder.
Right gotcha.
Minor turf squable at the edge.
And realy just another example of industrys
capture of a regulatory agency.
In Canada we have the radio nerds figure everything out and then the Feds auction off spectrum to the highest bidder.
And in the case of cell frequencys the feds can
shut any or all of it down if they want to.
 

oldguyflier

Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
12
Location
Coronado, California
Except they didn't. Either 'have to' or actually agree. You'd apparently be surprised how little power individual agencies have over other agencies within government. For instance, do you think the FAA can stop a tower (or tall building) from being built near an active airport runway? Think again.
They did here in San Diego! Made the developer take off 1 1/2 stories after building it close to Montgomery Field. They had kept building because local government said they would support it.
 

Rhino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
1,890
Location
KTHA
They did here in San Diego! Made the developer take off 1 1/2 stories after building it close to Montgomery Field. They had kept building because local government said they would support it.
But that's not a federal government agency exerting power over another federal government agency. That's what rv7charlie was saying. The thing in San Diego was a matter of ordering the building height be lowered after numerous agencies, including the FAA, said the existing height violated federal restrictions, and after a lawsuit was filed by AOPA. Although the local planning agency issued a permit allowing the wrong building height, there was no disagreement among government agencies over the legality of that height, and the contractor was repeatedly warned about this, both before and during construction. The contractor's position was that he was leglly allowed to build to that height because he had a building permit for it, but that isn't true. An erroneous building permit does not give you the right to violate the law. I've experienced that personally when I was issued an erroneous building permit, and later had to rectify the problem at my own expense. So although the mayor in San Diego originally supported the contractor, that didn't make it legal, and there was no fighting among government agencies, certainly not at the federal level. That same mayor was also the one who eventually ordered the building height be decreased to comply with FAA regulations.
 

Rhino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
1,890
Location
KTHA
 

Dana

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
10,318
Location
CT, USA
The controversy here isn't 5G by the way. The limitations and dangers have nothing to do with 5G. The media just uses 5G as a convenient moniker. The problem is the portion of the L band Ligado plans to use on their satellites to build their 5G network. It's very close to the frequencies used by GPS satellites, it's higher power, and it's fairly common to see bleed over on closely adjacent frequencies. Many GPS receivers on earth could easily be overwhelmed by a higher power signal on such a close frequency. Very few GPS receivers are hardened against such a possibility, which is why concerns have been raised about GPS jamming by adversaries in a military conflict. But this frequency band isn't required for 5G, so the implementation of 5G isn't the issue. Many companies like Verizon and AT&T are rolling out 5G on other frequencies that aren't a danger to GPS.
Right, this isn't the tinfoil hat crowd worrying about big bad 5G invading our precious bodily fluids, it's a legitmate issue with interference on GPS frequencies critical to public safety... approved by bureaucrats who didn't understand the implications of what they were approving.
 

GeeZee

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Feb 25, 2019
Messages
209
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Well the “tinfoil hat crowd“ has successfully sued the FCC to force them to look at multiple studies that show harm from electromagnetic radiation. Apparently the FCC’s position is that if it ain’t burning your skin it ain’t harmful ;)
I have to say I've worked around all those frequency except the 50 gig stuff my entire adult life and so far haven’t seen any adverse effects, well except that extra thumb on my back, but actually it comes in kinda handy at times….
 

rv7charlie

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
2,379
Location
Pocahontas MS
There are apparently two different issues related to the generic '5G' label. The issue with Ligado is that the FCC gave them access to a frequency band that's just under the frequency band for GPS signals (~1GHz to 1.6 GHz), and allows ground based (as in really close to you in a car or airplane) transmission levels FAR stronger than the GPS transmission levels, which are very low power and coming to you from about 11,000 miles away. The problem is that even the harmonics (basically distortion) off the Ligado towers have the potential to swamp the GPS signals, making them unusable.

The ATT/Verizon stuff is at a much higher frequency and apparently much closer to radar altimeter frequencies (~4.2-4.4GHz).
 

R90s

Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
May 3, 2020
Messages
11
Location
Northern Virginia
There are apparently two different issues related to the generic '5G' label. The issue with Ligado is that the FCC gave them access to a frequency band that's just under the frequency band for GPS signals (~1GHz to 1.6 GHz), and allows ground based (as in really close to you in a car or airplane) transmission levels FAR stronger than the GPS transmission levels, which are very low power and coming to you from about 11,000 miles away. The problem is that even the harmonics (basically distortion) off the Ligado towers have the potential to swamp the GPS signals, making them unusable.

The ATT/Verizon stuff is at a much higher frequency and apparently much closer to radar altimeter frequencies (~4.2-4.4GHz).
Once again an HBA contributor provides a concise, well written & correct explanation of a technical issue. In the words of Darth Vader:
“Impressive,
Most Impressive”
 

Bill-Higdon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
1,689
Location
Salem, Oregon, USA
Interesting note on of AT&T's first 5G cell sitesin Salem is at 1940 Turner RD SE Salem, OR 97302 if you look at it on Google Maps or similar, it's right across the road from KSLE
 

Fiberglassworker

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2021
Messages
55
But that's not a federal government agency exerting power over another federal government agency. That's what rv7charlie was saying. The thing in San Diego was a matter of ordering the building height be lowered after numerous agencies, including the FAA, said the existing height violated federal restrictions, and after a lawsuit was filed by AOPA. Although the local planning agency issued a permit allowing the wrong building height, there was no disagreement among government agencies over the legality of that height, and the contractor was repeatedly warned about this, both before and during construction. The contractor's position was that he was leglly allowed to build to that height because he had a building permit for it, but that isn't true. An erroneous building permit does not give you the right to violate the law. I've experienced that personally when I was issued an erroneous building permit, and later had to rectify the problem at my own expense. So although the mayor in San Diego originally supported the contractor, that didn't make it legal, and there was no fighting among government agencies, certainly not at the federal level. That same mayor was also the one who eventually ordered the building height be decreased to comply with FAA regulations.
I was working for the contractor who did the outside cladding on that building. before we started cutting the cladding, I pointed out to my boss the height issue, the FAAs comments, and the AOPAs law suit. My boss contacted the builder who told the company," Go ahead and build it as drawn, if we lose, we will pay you to take it down.", so we built all of the cladding, then sure enough when the builder, lost we got to remove the top 3 stories modify the cladding then install new cladding. The same builder was also shot down on a 280foot hotel to be built at the east end of Harbour Island that intruded into the navies IFR approach path to North Island Naval Air station. The aviation communities need to be the lookout for builders who work on the principle that it is better to ask for forgiveness than permission.
 

Mark Z

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
Messages
862
Location
Granbury, Texas USA 0TX0
It’s been a while since I flew an airplane equipped with a radar altimeter but the rub is that all the new avionics systems are relying on data from it. We could all use a cheaper “auto land” system in our flibs. I’ll bet technology (Dynon/Garmin experimental black ops) could get a better mouse trap out in short order if the politicians got out of the way. The “texters” will far outnumber the pilots. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
 

trimtab

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2014
Messages
290
Location
rocky mountains, rocky, usa
5g uses the same frequencys bands as 4g.
the energy levels are simmilar.
The gps is millitary property and they would
without hesitation ,invoke any number of rights
and privilages if anything was jamming there signal.
So how is this an issue at all?
The bands are different. Here is the list for 4G/LTE.

Note the large gap before the radar altitude band (4.2GHz-), The typical guard band fore the usehas been (and was in the case of 4G implementation) 3.78–4.84 GHz. This was a train wreck form the beginning. And at the risk of opening a "both sides" argument, here is a "both sides" argument.

/ * begin rant

The RTCA/ICAO/ISO standards for the TSO's NEVER specified even basic front end rejection. This is shocking to me, but there they are. The present standards can be executed by a reasonably intelligent and motivated teenager with a dual arb generator, a directional antenna (I used a $20 YAGI I had laying around for EMC stuff), and a scope with some basic math installed, and some careful triggers to get the right sideband. There is no signal conditioning beyond amplification. Any curious people out there can make a workable radar distance meter at 700-900 MHz to try on a metal building a few dozen meters away. It's not practical for much, but you can.

Here's the deal- digital signals generate splatter. A digital band near another band will splatter into the adjacent band (and others). Suppression is a big deal for the source, and when it doesn't need to be good enough, the power emitted off-band can be significant. There are bit operations to limit this, and of course hardware suppression, but it will happen. If the power is high enough in the splatter, and you have really dumb analog-like equipment using those bands without the ability to relatively easily filter the splatter out, you have a known unknown staring back at you.

Radar altimeters can easily reject the potential for splatter....in SOOO many cheap, easy, and near-bulletproof ways, it boggles the mind why radar altimeters have remained so freakishly dumb since 1980....and largely unchanged since 1966. This is totally insane. It's a multi-agency failure: FCC and FAA. And this could have been future proofed two decades ago at least. Using multiple bands to chirp and correlate, using a CDMA or spread spectrum algorithm, even a simple one that a 2 minute you tube could explain would be a virtual lock on a solution that would have entirely avoided this mess at essentially ZERO COST- NADA- to aviation...just plan a rollover to a new standard over, say, 10 years, as radar altimeter equipment is replaced. Then there are TOF systems like the ones I am using at present for a project...a few dollars, for crying out loud for the chipset part...good to 7cm- 15cm, by the way. There are even dumber ideas than anything listed above that would still be light years ahead of what exists now and could perhaps even be retrofitted. But no....when the FAA is run by people who sweat every day to look forward to the retirement date circled on their calendars, and the FCC is run by corporate revolving door hacks in the management offices, these things are going to happen. It will get worse- guaranteed- before things fall apart enough to get better.

The 5G standards could have been written to greatly limit splatter form the offending frequency range that presents a radiated power risk to the astoundingly dumb radar altimeter equipment. Much lower bandwidth in those areas of the spectrum, but so what. Or they could have dictated high suppression standards that would have dictated some more expense in the equipment but ZERO distributed expense.

Poor judgement at the FCC. Poor judgement at the FAA. Poor judgement all around. They don't play well together. We deserve better.

The warnings leading up to the Nextgen rollout catastrophes were visible to anyone with a basic undergraduate EE education, so that is proof I'm no Cassandra when anyone else could see it also. And so the concomitant failures of ADS-B (et al) to live up to its promises, which could have been seen by anyone with a clean piece of napkin and a decent pen, also foresaw the failures for the 5G rollout...these were talked about after 5G was on the drawing board after 4G came to being in the early 2010's. And here we are. But the retirement plans are great for the FAA folks, and those sweet sweet consultant/lobbyist jobs are always yearning for the FCC folks.

*/end rant.

Whiny posts are useless.

Seriously though...this should not even be in the realm of what might be called a "problem" if there were knowledgeable people who led the way in these decisions.
 

Rhino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
1,890
Location
KTHA
The bands are different. Here is the list for 4G/LTE.
Not the bands in question when it comes to the GPS issue. The media started erroneously referring to this as a 5G issue when it really isn't, and the moniker has stuck. This isn't a 5G signal they're worried about. It's something else they're using on satellites, that are used in the backbone of their infrastructure that supports 5G systems. See post# 18.
 
Top