What is your basis for this extraordinary claim?
Depending on the strength of 5G transmitters the higher order harmonics could be above the noise floor.
How else are you supposed to make sure that equipment made today won’t interfere with equipment made tomorrow if people don’t stick within their frequency allocations?
The claim above is basically the equivalent of “car should have always operated on the roads that are allocated for them, and should never have been driving through empty fields”. If you’re driving your car through a field you don’t own, you don’t get to complain when someone builds a house there.
All radio equipment is meant to be specified to operate only within its allocated spectrum, and to handle RF noise and interference from anything outside it’s spectrum.
How a radalt works is irrelevant, the allocation determines the operating parameters. If your equipment can’t operate within those parameters then it’s faulty, simple as that.
Nobody would try to defend a building whose foundation crept over outside of the plot of land belonging to it. If you’re house can’t standup without putting parts of itself into your neighbours garden, then your house is faulty, not you’re neighbours home when they decide to repurpose their garden.
I agree that quoted suggestion lacks nuance in the history that brought us to this state, but from a technical perspective it does not seem extraordinary. More that it simply advocates a very expensive and uncooperative way to solve a problem of the commons.
“Immunity” is largely your own problem though.
That's specifically for unlicensed Part 15 devices ref. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-A... ... the point of that wording is that unlicensed devices have no rights vs. licensed emissions.