5G is also accused of interfering with
GNSS service. GNSS includes GPS as well as similar technologies implemented by other countries.
As stated in the video above the basic problem lies in the ability of the affected recievers to block out the energy of the offending interference of an entirely different frequency band. Any receiver no matter what it does, whether it is a AM/FM, a TV set, a cellphone, or a radar altimeter, has two jobs: to receive the frequency of interest and reject all others. The "receive the frequency of interest" is the simpler part. Essentially amplify tiny amounts of electromagnetic energy in the sky until you can hear it clearly. It's the "reject all others part" that's hard. And expensive.
All receivers have to compromise their rejection numbers with their price point and form factor. There are trade offs in all forms of rejection. It is generally done through a combination of passive filtering, and active frequency conversion. These passive filters require physical space, and conversion introduces noise. The ideal filter would have nearly vertical edges and a flat top like a butte in the desert with no losses. We call that having tight skirts. That is hard to achieve at a low cost in a small size.
Generally we are happy to see an inverted soup bowl shape. Looking at the green line in the video above, you can see it barely slopes in either direction from center. It has a dinner plate curve. The radar manufacturers could probably add a filter that squares that curve up quite a bit, but the losses it introduces would require they increase the transmitter power by a significant factor. My guess would be at least a doubling, but possibly less than one order of magnitude (10x)
The flat rejection curve also suggests the manufacturers were begging for problems long ago - that they should have seen this kind of cochannel interference coming as the world migrated to more and more wireless congestion. Frankly, I'm surprised bigger problems haven't occurred already, and may explain the nearly non-sensical commercial airline aversion to personal electronics use during take off and landing. They had to overcome poor product design issues as best they could because the OEM's weren't taking responsibility for advancing their technology.
So, in some ways the cloistered airline industry had this coming. It won't be a cost less fix, but it certainly won't be expensive compared to other safety measures they have had to implement. And ultimately it will improve safety in at least this one small thing.
). 
I would sympathize, but what you have without the thing configured is a miracle. Every item in this room is a miracle of technology, even ballpoint pens and the fabric of my clothing. 
5a, it just gets better every day. 
X 4
X 33