Start with every single airliner worldwide and probably every single military
aircraft. This is a global system, global frequency allocation and brand new
planes come with radar altimeters.
From: Mike Hammett
Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2021 12:19 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
Cc: Chuck McCown
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] C band 5G vs Radar Altimeters
There can't be THAT many old planes in the air that have this automated landing
system.
Buy new receivers or install some filters.
5 MHz away? Okay.
10 MHz? Maybe.
200? Bugger off.
They're not making new spectrum, so everyone (even incumbents) needs to move
with the times.
Just like the 30 MHz T1 microwave links out there. Put something else in the
air more efficient.
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chuck McCown via AF" <af@af.afmug.com>
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <af@af.afmug.com>
Cc: "Chuck McCown" <ch...@go-mtc.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2021 1:06:03 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] C band 5G vs Radar Altimeters
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 <af...@ics-il.net> 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" <thardy...@gmail.com>
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <af@af.afmug.com>
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 <af@af.afmug.com> wrote:
I understand the issue now:
https://youtu.be/942KXXmMJdY
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
