Re: FCC vs FAA Story
They had 5 years to do that, and didn’t start until the very last minute. Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 5, 2022, at 8:41 PM, Doug Royer wrote: > > > On 6/5/22 17:14, sro...@ronan-online.com wrote: >> They had 5 years, and did NOTHING. No amount of time would have changed that. >> >> Shane >> > It is not that simple. And they have done a lot of work. Much more than > NOTHING. > > These are primarily used in low visibility situations. How many crashed > passenger filled planes would have been acceptable? > > Low visibility, low altitude flying is known as IFR. (IFR - Instrument Flight > Rules). There are a hundred or more low altitude flight 'plates' published. > They had to be checked, verified, determined to be safe. This is NOT > something that they just decide. Until they knew it was safe, they had to tag > it as unsafe. Below is an example of just two at the Van Nuys that MIGHT have > been effected. > > They actually have to fly each change to each plate, under different > conditions to re-certify them. And you want them to do that. If they > determine that it was safer if 50 foot higher in one segment, then they had > to re-test again and then release a new 'plate'. > > And they had to certify the equipment, done by the manufacturer and the FAA. > They can't just place the equipment on a test bench and see if it still works. > > We don't know, so go ahead and fly your 500 passengers in low visibility and > see if you crash is NOT how to do it. > > > > -- > Doug Royer - ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (http://DougRoyer.US) douglas.ro...@gmail.com > 714-989-6135
Re: FCC vs FAA Story
On 6/5/22 17:14, sro...@ronan-online.com wrote: They had 5 years, and did NOTHING. No amount of time would have changed that. Shane It is not that simple. And they have done a lot of work. Much more than NOTHING. These are primarily used in low visibility situations. How many crashed passenger filled planes would have been acceptable? Low visibility, low altitude flying is known as IFR. (IFR - Instrument Flight Rules). There are a hundred or more low altitude flight 'plates' published. They had to be checked, verified, determined to be safe. This is NOT something that they just decide. Until they knew it was safe, they had to tag it as unsafe. Below is an example of just two at the Van Nuys that MIGHT have been effected. They actually have to fly each change to each plate, under different conditions to re-certify them. And you want them to do that. If they determine that it was safer if 50 foot higher in one segment, then they had to re-test again and then release a new 'plate'. And they had to certify the equipment, done by the manufacturer and the FAA. They can't just place the equipment on a test bench and see if it still works. We don't know, so go ahead and fly your 500 passengers in low visibility and see if you crash is NOT how to do it. Two Kinds of Instrument Approach Charts -- Doug Royer - ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (http://DougRoyer.US) douglas.ro...@gmail.com 714-989-6135 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: FCC vs FAA Story
They had 5 years, and did NOTHING. No amount of time would have changed that. Shane > On Jun 5, 2022, at 8:05 PM, Doug Royer wrote: > > >> On 6/5/22 13:01, Miles Fidelman wrote: >> John Levine wrote: >>> It appears that Crist Clark said: ProPublica published an investigative report on it last week, https://www.propublica.org/article/fcc-faa-5g-planes-trump-biden Whaddya know. Plenty of blame to go around. Government regulative bodies captured by the industries they’re supposed to regulate. The usual stuff. >>> That piece has way too much inside baseball and misses the actual question >>> of whether C band radios would break radio altimeters. > The problem was that when those older radio altimeters were built, no one > else was near their frequency. So their sensitivity to near frequency > interference was not as tightly tested as newer equipment is tested. It was > possible that a near frequency could interfere with its operation at lower > altitudes. > > Replacing older equipment in airplanes is not just a matter of replacing > them. When they replace them in commercial airliners, they MUST test each > type of the equipment, in the plane ($$$ per hour) and make up and test new > flight manuals, what happens if that piece of equipment fails in flight > manual section instructions, ... > > I think the FAA needed more time to test the old equipment in flight, and > thus needed money for those expenses. Newer equipment is already tested to > tighter tolerances and is safe. > > -- > Doug Royer - ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (http://DougRoyer.US) douglas.ro...@gmail.com > 714-989-6135
Re: FCC vs FAA Story
On 6/5/22 13:01, Miles Fidelman wrote: John Levine wrote: It appears that Crist Clark said: ProPublica published an investigative report on it last week, https://www.propublica.org/article/fcc-faa-5g-planes-trump-biden Whaddya know. Plenty of blame to go around. Government regulative bodies captured by the industries they’re supposed to regulate. The usual stuff. That piece has way too much inside baseball and misses the actual question of whether C band radios would break radio altimeters. The problem was that when those older radio altimeters were built, no one else was near their frequency. So their sensitivity to near frequency interference was not as tightly tested as newer equipment is tested. It was possible that a near frequency could interfere with its operation at lower altitudes. Replacing older equipment in airplanes is not just a matter of replacing them. When they replace them in commercial airliners, they MUST test each type of the equipment, in the plane ($$$ per hour) and make up and test new flight manuals, what happens if that piece of equipment fails in flight manual section instructions, ... I think the FAA needed more time to test the old equipment in flight, and thus needed money for those expenses. Newer equipment is already tested to tighter tolerances and is safe. -- Doug Royer - ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (http://DougRoyer.US) douglas.ro...@gmail.com 714-989-6135 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: FCC vs FAA Story
It appears that Miles Fidelman said: >> Harold Feld did a much better job in November: >> >> https://wetmachine.com/tales-of-the-sausage-factory/what-the-eff-faa-my-insanely-long-field-guide-to-the-faa-fcc-5g-c-band-fight/ >Well... a bit better look at the politics & motivations of the folks >involved. Still doesn't address whether or not C band radios break >radio altimeters. To translate from the FCC-esse: “Air industry, we cannot screw over the U.S. deployment in 5G by taking the single largest, most useful allocation of 5G spectrum off the shelf indefinitely because a handful of older, crappy altimeters might under some wildly improbable set of circumstances experience harmful interference. While we take air safety issues seriously, you guys are gonna need to recognize that “no 5G in lower C-Band” is not a realistic expectation. So please work with the wireless industry here to figure out if you are going to need to get people to upgrade their equipment.” Also this link from the article, which is self-serving but I believe their numbers are accurate: https://www.5gandaviation.com/ R's, John
Re: FCC vs FAA Story
On 2022-06-05, at 22:01, Miles Fidelman wrote: > > Still doesn't address whether or not C band radios break radio altimeters. The discussion reminds me of the early 1990s, when mobile phones became pocketable. There was some talk about how emissions from mobile phones that people take into cars could be bundled inside the car in unfortunate reflections and theoretically trigger airbag systems, hurt drivers and cause fatal accidents. We know how that went. (I got screamed at by taxi drivers more than once at the time while making phone calls in their cars. Needless to say, I didn’t manage to kill any of them.) Safety is about probabilities. A theoretical possibility that occurs 0.01 times during the lifetime of the universe would be reasonably recognized as safe. Of course, most people (including politicians) can’t compute (and don’t understand probabilities anyway), so we will see some technically unjustifiable compromises that will appease the uninformable public. By the way, the largest probability for influencing radio altimeter operation is likely to come not from the ground installations but from passengers using C-band-capable (3.x GHz 5G, e.g., band n77) devices on board… But addressing that would inconvenience the airlines, so it won’t be weaponized in the current attempt to squeeze 5G operators for money to replace crappy old altimeters that don’t work right with even a 220 MHz guard band. Grüße, Carsten
Re: FCC vs FAA Story
It's nice to see the FCC take regulating receivers seriously, finally. It's a two way street and we've only been looking one direction the whole time. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Crist Clark" To: "nanog@nanog.org list" Sent: Sunday, June 5, 2022 12:18:20 AM Subject: FCC vs FAA Story There was a lively thread on NANOG about the FCC and FAA conflict over G5 spectrum and altimeters when it all came to a head early this year. ProPublica published an investigative report on it last week, https://www.propublica.org/article/fcc-faa-5g-planes-trump-biden Whaddya know. Plenty of blame to go around. Government regulative bodies captured by the industries they’re supposed to regulate. The usual stuff.
Re: FCC vs FAA Story
John Levine wrote: It appears that Crist Clark said: ProPublica published an investigative report on it last week, https://www.propublica.org/article/fcc-faa-5g-planes-trump-biden Whaddya know. Plenty of blame to go around. Government regulative bodies captured by the industries they’re supposed to regulate. The usual stuff. That piece has way too much inside baseball and misses the actual question of whether C band radios would break radio altimeters. Harold Feld did a much better job in November: https://wetmachine.com/tales-of-the-sausage-factory/what-the-eff-faa-my-insanely-long-field-guide-to-the-faa-fcc-5g-c-band-fight/ Well... a bit better look at the politics & motivations of the folks involved. Still doesn't address whether or not C band radios break radio altimeters. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra Theory is when you know everything but nothing works. Practice is when everything works but no one knows why. In our lab, theory and practice are combined: nothing works and no one knows why. ... unknown
Re: FCC vs FAA Story
It appears that Crist Clark said: >ProPublica published an investigative report on it last week, > >https://www.propublica.org/article/fcc-faa-5g-planes-trump-biden > >Whaddya know. Plenty of blame to go around. Government regulative bodies >captured by the industries they’re supposed to regulate. The usual stuff. That piece has way too much inside baseball and misses the actual question of whether C band radios would break radio altimeters. Harold Feld did a much better job in November: https://wetmachine.com/tales-of-the-sausage-factory/what-the-eff-faa-my-insanely-long-field-guide-to-the-faa-fcc-5g-c-band-fight/ R's, John
Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers
On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 9:12 AM Masataka Ohta wrote: > > Livingood, Jason via NANOG wrote: > > > That shows up as increased user demand (usage), which means that the > > CAGR will rise and get factored into future year projections. > > You should recognize that Moore's law has ended. > > Masataka Ohta For a long time now... I have had the opinion that we have reached the age of "peak bandwidth", that nearly nobody's 4 person home needs more than 50Mbit with good queue management. Certainly increasing upload speeds dramatically (and making static IP addressing and saner firewalling feasible) might shift some resources from the cloud, which I'd like (anyone using tailscale here?), but despite 8k video (which nobody can discern), it's really hard to use up > 50Mbit for more than a second or three with current applications. Even projected applications like VR, or adding other senses to the internet like smell or taste, are not bandwidth intensive. Looking back 10 years, I was saying the same things, only then I felt it was 25Mbit circa mike belshe's paper. So real bandwidth requirements only doubling every decade might be a new equation to think about... ... check in with me again and wipe egg off my face in another decade. -- FQ World Domination pending: https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/state_of_fq_codel/ Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers
Look up the Broadband Data Act and the FCC BDC. This will identify what individuals have service in ~6 months. On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 11:41 AM Sean Donelan wrote: > I wish (...) that public right of way agreements included a requirement > that service providers must publish accurate service area maps, and must > provide service (or pay a substantial penalty for each inaccurate service > claim). > > In the old days (...) the "certificate of publice convenience and > necessity" came with a duty to offer service to all in the area. That was > part of the consideration to use the public right of ways. > > Now, even when you order service and obtain a confirmation, its not really > a confirmation. Or ridiculous 'install fees', which are really go away > fees. > > Look at the difficulty the FCC and state PUCs have getting accurate > service maps from carriers and service providers. Its like those wireless > maps, the carriers make jokes about in TV commercials. Their own ad > agencies know their own maps are bogus. > > > > On Thu, 2 Jun 2022, Jared Mauch wrote: > >> 50 feet across the street from me on the east side of the road is AT > FTTH > >> territory. My side of the street is not. F the west side apparently. > > > > This is common sadly. I had fiber 1200' from my house that was > > unused and there may be no record of it, etc.. so it's just not possible > > to happen. Same goes for areas that have long-haul fiber passing them > > but can't get service. > > > > Not everyone is that lucky, but I've seen places with 2-3 fiber > > providers that pass them and none offer service. >
