I live on the flight path into the two major airports listed in Seattle - do you think Verizon will give me a credit for not having full 5G service in my location?

Yes

Sorry, I mean no.

Find all the articles you can about that fact, print them out, & take them to your nearest physical store. Drop them on the counter, point out that you live in the exclusion zone, & ask for a refund of your supposedly unavailable 5G service.

Either they will lie & claim you CAN get 5G service & there's nothing to worry about, or they will say they'll look into the matter. Either way, refuse to leave without said claim in writing, signed & dated by the highest level employee available. Said employee won't be authorized to make comittments on behalf of the company, but it begins the paper trail by which you can braid the rope you later use to hang them by.

Give them no more than thirty (30) days to come up with the billing credit, then complain again in writing. Continue to complain in writing, retaining all their written crap in reply, until you get the "permanent" reduction of your bill.

If they refuse, send said paper trail to your local newspaper's consumer advocate/letters to the editor section. It's not quite like the guy that spent a bucket of money to get his question published in a major national paper to dropkick his ISP into getting their ass in gear, but it may have the same effect.

You can also, if you have such accounts, post to the various social media outlets to publicly name & shame the carrier into publicly making it right.

*Hands you a bottle of extra strength anti-headache medacin*

I'd offer you a pint to wash those down, but booze is contra-indicated for most pharmaceuticals. =-/

Who says you're entitled to 5G using C band where you live just because they had planned to make it available and have to delay for six months? There are plenty of other 5G frequencies that have or will be made available other than those, and they might even speed up the deployment of some in areas that have to delay C band deployment.

...there will now be a tinfoil hat as well as the sickbag?

In a cost saving move that surprises noone, the two items will be combined into one. =-Jp

"The buffer zones are designed to keep wireless signals and aircraft separate following reports that the 3.7 GHz band used by the 5G C-band could harmfully interfere with civilian aircraft radar altimeters."

The level of stupidity in today's world is simply STUNNING. Can *anyone* give me a believable reason why the 5G C-band wasn't tested for possible interference with ANY existing important infrastructure BEFORE the FCC even bothered to initiate the spectrum sale?? And then the development of the 5G C-band standards?? And then during the development of the actual electronic transceivers??

No wonder the world is fscked up. The people in charge only manage, on a reoccurring basics, to show how utterly incompetent they are. Nothing, not even not working according to plans, shall interfere...with the promise of grand future profits.

Because there are hundreds of MHz separating the 5G frequencies from the frequencies used by aircraft and it was assumed no aircraft could be using equipment so crappy it would be affected?

Ok, calm down. The word "interfere" can have lots of meanings. In this case it is not what most people mean by "interfere". The two services are on two different bands and would normally not be a problem.

The issue is due to some of the aircraft receivers are overly sensitive to out-of-band transmissions. Google "front end overload" for discussions of the type of issue we are dealing with. The telcos are arguing that their equipment is producing a clean signal within their assigned band. Which appears to be true. They are then saying that it isn't their fault some aircraft have (arguably) defective equipment. Which is a valid point.

The airlines are complaining because they bought equipment the FAA approved as safe and now all of a sudden it may not work due to the Telco's action. Which is also a valid argument, though I think it is a bit weak.

There are two simple fixes. The telcos can spend a lot of money and purchase and install special antennas that will not allow any emissions above a certain height. Or the airlines can spend a lot of money purchase and install new equipment without this weakness. The battle isn't over the problem. The battle is over who will pay for it.

Who has money to spend on 5G hardware? People who probably fly a lot (either Important-Business/Govmint-People or Frequent-Vacationers). And where do they want 5G the most? The airport, naturally, when they're either catching up from their previous flight or doing Super Important Stuff before the next one. They're paying for 5G service so they don't have to purchase premium airport WiFi that's better than the "free" tier for the commoners. This agreement will certainly not make these customers happy.

Which makes me wonder: Will the terminal structure serve as an attenuator if AT&T/Verizon install 5G C-band antennas *inside* the airport terminals?