Lots of old planes in the world. Lots of old front end filters too. And the system chirps the band to get a more sure return so it needs the bandwidth. It was designed to be robust, not to be spectrum efficient. Probably came out of WW2.
Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 12, 2021, at 11:45 AM, Mike Hammett <[email protected]> wrote: > > > If radio altimeters have 200 MHz (which seems excessive), it seems equally > excessive to be complaining about noise from 200 MHz away. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > > Midwest Internet Exchange > > The Brothers WISP > > > > > From: "Tim Hardy" <[email protected]> > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2021 9:50:44 AM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] C band 5G vs Radar Altimeters > > 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
-- AF mailing list [email protected] http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
