Re: 5 GHz is much more complicated that most folk realise
Did they hook you up directly to a PR generator via a fiber-to-brain connection or something? That would explain why you are spouting rubbish too.
The specific issue with weather radars, 5GHz band and the FCC in the USA is because USA has an ungodly amount of those.
European countries have on average 3-5 installations per large country, one per small one which are predominantly designed to serve aviation. These are backed up by roughly the same number of military ones and a very small number of dedicated installations serving the missile launchers used for hail dispersal in agricultural protection in high hail incidence areas (Hungarian Pusta, Bulgarian Trakia valley, Danube plains in Romania, etc). The latter are being phased out nowdays to be served via "radar data as a service" from the main stations.
USA is nothing like that. In the 1980-es as part of the Star War era militarization madness USA developed an idiot friendly weather radar to be operated by the national guard in its civil defense role for tornado warnings. As any Doppler radar it is obviously double purpose (it all depends on what software you load into the DSPs), but officially it is for weather. I evaluated that POS as a side job in the 1990es on a contract to support a tender for a new radar in one of the European countries. It was hideous - very wide beam, no ability to see raw data, virtually no ability to do anything. Its only redeeming feature was that it could be operated by a grunt in uniform with the educational level of a grunt. The wide beam was the obvious dual use give away. Clouds do not move a lot, you would like a narrow beam to inspect it properly and hit it from up to 300 km away. Planes and warheads - not so much, you want a wide beam otherwise you lose it.
These (and their descendants) are deployed in ridiculous quantities across the midwest (less than every 100 miles). They are everywhere. That is in addition to proper radar installations operated by the USAF and airports. This makes for an extremely crowded 5GHz band and ridiculous interference issues in that band.
First of all, it is not aviation at stake. The bulk are not used for aviation. They are civil defense installations to deal with the very USA specific Mid-West tornado problem. They were originally intended as double-use and this is why they are not operated by civilians. They _CAN_ be replaced by a smaller number of proper radars, however that means a massive pork reduction so not likely.
Second, this is a USA specific problem. In the rest of the world the problem does not exist. You need to enforce a couple of miles of exclusion zone in 5GHz band around less than 5 installations per country. You might as well put those somewhere where the exclusion zone is easier to enforce (and they have a better "view").
So pulling the "aviation" argument, etc, especially in the FCC being a control freak context is frankly lying with a straight face. This has little to do with aviation. It has to do with politics. It will take a political decision to take the toys from the national guard, replace them with proper correctly spaced long range radar installations outside cities and put local exclusion zones around them. That is not happening, so various strawman arguments are used instead.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
