So in watching this video the title is totally misleading. They said C-band/5G in the title. Most of us are going to read that as 5 GHz and the new 6 GHz mostly because that’s what we are more used to. 5G in the cellular sense can be just about any band as long as is “Fast Speeds”. A good 4G LTE base station now can deliver 85 meg or more to a phone without it being 5G in their terms (or it is 5GE for enhanced according to AT&T phones and marketing). So that being said, this problem is in the band just above the current 3.5/3.65 GHz band. The FCC is expanding that band up to the 3.9 GHz portion if I remember correctly. This in most WISP minds is the CBRS band.
The good thing about the problem being in this band, base stations have to log in to the SASS system to be able to operate. I see a simple solution to this problem, just map out the flight paths where the concern areas are for the airborne RADAR units. This would include any ILS corridors from likely 10 nautical miles out from the runway endpoints and I am not sure how they set up approach paths for a helipad. I do know from my days of filing for tower height clearances, that every one of these flight paths there is concerned with are already mapping out by the FAA. Point being these are all known areas of high risk. The SAS is a geography aware database system. All they need to do is set the database up to not permit any transmitter on the concerned frequencies to operate in these approach path areas. They can use that study data referenced in the video to create a good buffer for these areas based on free space loss as an added measure of safety. I suppose that one could also restrict the transmit power in these exclusion areas to a much lower level so as not to cause flight radar units interference and permit some level of operations. These exclusion rules built in to the SAS would be applicable to both GAA and PAL licensed users. I am pretty sure the SAS has this methodology already in place for the costal/port areas and real time on air sensing station set up to force base stations to turn off or move from frequencies the Navy might be using in ports when they are present. This band was designed to be using it as shared spectrum with on air sensing, extending those capabilities to protect the aviation system is a trivial task. If the FAA/air industry types knew this it would seem like a simple and logical problem to solve. But alas that would make it so chicken little can say the sky is falling which seems like the only way we communicate in this world anymore. Thank you, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com From: AF [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jaime Solorza Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2021 1:14 PM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] C band 5G vs Radar Altimeters Well I believe Fort Bliss and other radar users around here are getting revenge on the 5Ghz DFS users...several wisps are complaining!!! Oh well On Sun, Dec 12, 2021, 8:52 AM Tim Hardy <[email protected]> wrote: Deja Vu all over again. Very similar to the OBE / adjacent channel concerns voiced in the 6 GHz unlicensed proceeding. The FCC’s total lack of understanding of receiver filtering in even current devices is astounding and its fairly clear that money / politics beats physics everyday. On Dec 11, 2021, at 3:59 PM, Chuck McCown via AF <[email protected]> wrote: I understand the issue now: https://youtu.be/942KXXmMJdY -- AF mailing list [email protected] http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list [email protected] http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- AF mailing list [email protected] http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
