Slashdot Mirror

You're an idiot if you think speed is the only enabler of this technology and that "people" are the only target market.

I for one am looking forward to better battery life, seamless tower handover, and not having my phone drop off every time there's people watching a football game in the stadium next door.

It will be interesting for certain. As 5G works it's way upwards in frequency, the RF doesn't behave quite like people want it to. 24 to 40 GHz? I will be munching on popcorn, watching the increased Bandwidth - good - the radically shortened range - sometimes good, sometimes bad, and then there is the atmospheric effects. There are bandwidth tricks too, but while infinite bandwidth can be available at a given frequency - don't get excited - it takes infinite power long before that bandwidth is realized.

Digitally oriented people often have trouble understanding RF. And we are rapidly approaching saturation. The tricks to stretch bandwidth are pretty cool and clever. But eventually, the noise floor destroys the usefulness.

I have one of these hanging in my office for folks to find space for their digital RF dreams https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files... A pretty cool chart, but it shows what we are up against.

>"The fine is for transmitting on certain frequencies reserved for communications with satellites. Broadcasting on those frequencies requires a license from the FCC,"

Exactly. There might be a lot of hate on Slashdot toward the FCC for perhaps exceeding their mandate in certain other issues, but THIS particular example is exactly why the FCC exists. If anyone were allowed to just broadcast on whatever frequencies they like for whatever purpose they like, critical infrastructure could be severely impaired and cause real damage/loss/chaos.

These folk must have been real cowboys. I can get an experimental radio license without much problem, and the rules for balloon launches are pretty straightforward. Straightforward to the point that I could right now conduct relevant research easily, without skirting the law.

Any restrictions regarding ballooning are strictly safety and letting the FAA know what is going on.

Why get licensed? Here's the NTIA chart of frequency allocations. https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files... I have a big printout of this on my office wall to educate folks who just want to "pick a frequency and go". Now for the satellites. A whole lot of coordination has to happen if you want to put satellites in orbit. They have a troubling aspect of being impromptu kinetic energy weapons, or just space debris that can clog up desirable orbits. If the US denied them, there was probably a good reason. Perhaps we are seeing why.

These folk are meddling in the affairs of dragons - they should be glad they were only fined by the F.C.C.

Here's where you can actually comment (sort of the point of the article), go to it folks: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/feder...

sexconker announced:

Because CNET doesn't want you actually expressing your thoughts on privacy, I'll provide the goods: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/feder...

Somebody with points, please MOD PARENT +1 Informative.

Also, msmash, please include the above link in TFS.

That is all ...

CNET is a farce, yes, as are Slashdot's "editors".
https://www.ntia.doc.gov/feder...

Because CNET doesn't want you actually expressing your thoughts on privacy, I'll provide the goods: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/feder...

On behalf of the U.S. Department of Commerce, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is requesting comments on ways to advance consumer privacy while protecting prosperity and innovation. NTIA is seeking public comments on a proposed approach to this task that lays out a set of user-centric privacy outcomes that underpin the protections that should be produced by any Federal actions on consumer-privacy policy, and a set of high-level goals that describe the outlines of the ecosystem that should be created to provide those protections.

Written comments identified by Docket No. 180821780-8780-01 may be submitted by email to privacyrfc2018@ntia.doc.gov. Comments submitted by email should be machine-readable and should not be copy-protected. Written comments also may be submitted by mail to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 4725, Attn: Privacy RFC, Washington, DC 20230.

Pssst! Don't tell anyone, but Radio is code word for "conservative talk radio". Only conservatives spies get there marching orders from Rush Limbaugh. At any moment, they're ready to act on a coordinated attack against gays and hipsters. A Pearl Harbor event were they take San Francisco.

Radio, ATOMIC Radio... be afraid! Be very very afraid for now the voices are to be heard much clearer now.

You know - I think you're right about what a lot of people think. They hear the word radio, and they think of the dying AM radio world.

I remember when Hams with their Handi-talkies were looked upon as nerds. Now people are hopelessly addicted to their smartphones, but they are somehow cool. Either way, those little devices are two way radios.

I'm at breakfast now, connected to the restaurant's router with the radio in my laptop. Looking at the local mountains with all of their towers.

For all of the AC's that think radio is dead, here's a cool little chart of frequency allocations in the USA https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files... I have a huge poster of this in my office to illustrate just how crowded the bands are. When someone gets spunky about "just find a space!" I tell them to go over to the chart and find the space to use. To make matters worse, even if AM radio dies off, those Medium frequencies are just too unruly for the kind of radio communications people envision today. So might as well allocate the whole band to Amateur radio for Hams to experiment with.

Probably true, but unless you can provide numbers like he just did

Here is a number: 5.

Just like his numbers it isn't backed up by a source and is just propaganda invented to push my agenda.

If you want something more substantial you could read through this document:
$200 Billion Broadband Scandal

It refers to some 528 sources so it might take some time to verify everything but at least it proves his point.

unless we all like shelling out huge amounts of money to things we can't have.

Well, you already did.

It's not like socialized infrastructure is a new thing.
While privatized infrastructure can work, no-one have been able to make it work better than community owned infrastructure.
Thinking that privatized infrastructure will be better is a bit like thinking that a totalitarian communism will work.
It might be theoretically possible but every attempt so far have showed the opposite.

Not mentioned in the article, the comments are Here

Shoot... Verizon is even there with a comment on how the NTIA should focus on reducing public use of radio spectrum and making more spectrum to be licensed to commercial telecom carriers.

That's why the Old Economy Steve's are asshats

I'm going to call you Obama Economy Matt, for being so out of touch with current economics. The economy has improved a lot since it cratered in 2008. Educate yourself.

The report the article is referring to is here

Apparently tablets are pretty popular... who knew?

When it comes to boycotting Israel, the US strictly enforces anti-boycott laws on American companies. When we accepted a civil works contract in Dubai, these laws affected us: the UAE ministry bidding the job demanded a "no Israeli parts" clause in the contract, and we had to decline, as would any other American company.

We need a similar law protecting the first amendment. When a European court orders Google to remove a result from Google Search world-wide or face sanctions in Europe, they are depriving Americans of their first amendment rights, and it's unacceptable that we would allow a foreign power to infringe upon rights our own government may not touch, and do so on our own soil. It is as if we were still their colony. I don't care if it's France, China, or Myanmar, it's completely unacceptable to the level I would go to war to stop it. The least we can do is pass a law shutting this Eurocrat bullshit down. If they want to censor Europe, and Google wants to continue engaging, perhaps that's fine, but if it affects Americans it's unacceptable to me as a citizen.

Actually I think the federal government needs to radically downsize and butt out of 20-30+% of what they have their fingers in. If I recall from my 8th grade civics class, the states retained all responsibility for everything not specifically granted to the federal government in the constitution. In my mind the federal government has badly over reached their powers.

The problem is RF doesn't respect state boundaries a bit. Not a bit.

I'm happy to state's right's stuff, but trying to imagine a country where each state sets the RF communications rules, frequencies, and modes would be completely chaotic. 50 different sets of rules.

What should probably scare you even more is that it isn't only the Federal government, but all of this radio and electronic stuff is regulated by the world! Every few years, most all the countries of the world get together and hammer out rules as to what frequencies are used for what.

Anyhow yeah, its a complicated and intricate job hammering out how to work this stuff. I have a big poster of this in my office https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files... .

And that's just one country. But its worth a read. And time after time we have interests that try to mess with it - thing the failed Broadband over Power Line or setting up broadband service that nukes GPS. It's usually people trying to trump physics for money or ideology.

There is a good chance that this initiative will create interference and destroy the very service it aims to create. The reviews were put in place for a reason. Physics was the reason, not left wing bureaucrats trying to impede progress.

Im glad this is already marked as flamebait. Such a steaming pile of shit its incredible.
California produces nothing but shit movies and produce
http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/d...
Granted above posted link is old but I still think is more accurate then what you stated.

Laws that single out a single person or entity are unconstitutional.

Such as the law(s) which make it illegal for a U.S. company or person to boycott Israel, right?

I thought we already paid ISP's to build out, they just kept the money and cities/states kept quiet.

Something along the line of the 200 billion scandal

https://www.ntia.doc.gov/legac...

So do we need to regulate marketing? Sabotage is clearly illegal, as it tramples on the rights of others.

Well of course it is illegal. But business engages in many illegal activities already. This is just a human nature issue. Price fixing, insider trading industrial espionage, bribery. human's competitive nature added to greed and some people are basically dishonest.

But mergers? Advertising? That needs to be regulated?

Mergers are one of the most efficient ways of creating monopolies. They also have the advantage of being legal. But they are also a tool that can end up with only one player in a market. Advertising? I guess it depends on how you are advertising. If Domino's Pizza puts out ads that Papa John's Pizza 's secret ingredient is cow manure and that their cheese contains Arsenic, Papa John's people might not like that. But with no controls, it's all good.

Government should be as small as possible, rather than all powerful,

I'll just note here that I agree. We merely have a disagreement in level.

and in the business world it should be limited simply to remedying offenses against the rights of others. NOT potential offenses (anti-monopoly type actions) or picking-and-choosing winners. By giving Government such power, it becomes trivial for players to legally buy laws and regulations to trample on the rights of others.

Let us not forget that at this point, Business is the Government.

But let us put your idea to the test in an area that I am very familiar with. RF. So we have a spectrum of frequencies available. At present, access to transmit on these frequencies is closely regulated. Removing these regulations means I can transmit on any frequency I want to, with whatever power I wish. This includes right at the same frequency of someone else s transmissions. It also means that if I wanted to introduce a Kilowatt class Wi-Fi system that wipes out everyone else's, I can do it. Even if it were decided that I was doing something illegal, it would be a nice long wait for the aggrieved.

What makes things worse is the physics of certain frequencies, with some allowing worldwide coverage using only a few watts of power. So now the libertarian use of RF is affecting global politics. And we already had a case of regulation bending that was gong to wipe out the GPS system in order to allow people to use more bandwidth on their smartphones.

Point is, unregulated use of RF would make it virtually unusable. So we license, set power limits and distribute frequency use. And we do this in conjunction with the rest of the world. It's regulated to hell and back. Here's a cool chart https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files...

Regulate, law or something, take care of it or lose it. Now in a world where people are elected to make law who don't believe in science, how am I going to explain to someone who doesn't believe in the laws of physics about the temporal aspects of th eF1 and F2 ionization layers and their effects on 4 MHz and 7 MHz signal propagation, or ducted thermal inversion propagation at the VHF frequencies?

So instead of the world of politics, where arguments from personal incredulity insure that the dumbest person in the room wins the argument, we have wisely allowed people who actually know about such things make regulations that allow citizens to make the best use of the spectrum.

But in a free market threat, there are completely unregulated devices coming from China, inexpensive and available on Ebay and other outlets, that in addition to their stated purpose, send out a lot of RF noise, which disrupts a lot of devices. The unregulated threatening the regulated.

Some issues are simply too complex for the virtually powerless politicians you envision.

And as for regulation, I don't want politicians to d

You are confusing FCC with the Office of Spectrum Management. FCC is just a giant First Amendment violation.

ISPs will make more money if they prioritize their own media subsidiaries over external traffic.

This is covered by existing law.

Oh except for the fact that there is no competitor in many jurisdictions and for those that do have "competition," its almost always just two options (cable or telephone company) and both are doing the same damned things for the same damned reason -- it makes them more money.

70% of Americans have two or more choices for wired ISPs that provide over 10Mbps Internet service, more if you include wireless options, which is increasingly popular among many people who use only a mobile phone. Only 10% of Americans have only one choice of ISP at any speed. (Source)

Pai noted that 2015 was the first non-recession year that Internet investment decreased over the previous year. It doesn't seem unreasonable that TItle II, with it's much greater regulatory requirements (including things like compulsory censorship!) will actually hurt competition more than the alternative.

Reports say otherwise. I am not sure why people all think they have one option in their areas and most people only have one option. True in the late 90's and early 2000's but ISP's do this crazy thing called expanding their markets to make more money and increase share prices.

Based on this it appears to be 769-798MHz based on the guard bands for FirstNet, so near typical UHF cell network frequencies.

15 years to get this ball rolling. And there's no credible answer for how this will serve anything outside major urban areas. Basically we've found a way to justify nationalizing first responder comms. Henceforth the deals with be handled in Washington by the "right" people. Yay.

The analog TV bands are not very suitable for high capacity demands. Most of those bands are already being claimed for other purposes as well. And digital TV still chews up quite a bit of those bands.

Lower frequencies also means bulkier antennas on the mobile devices - or less efficient antennas. So there's no real point in trying to reach for those bands.

Also see this allocation chart, even though it's a bit dated it's still interesting. It seems to have a segment between 11.7 and 12.2 GHz that is planned for Mobile use.

My guess is radar.

According to Wikipedia, BT runs in the 2400-2483.5 MHz range (including guard bands) and, according to this, the 2417-2483.5 MHz range has been allocated to "radiolocation". With only 17 MHz left over (less when you factor in guard bands), it's probably congestion that does the rest of the damage.

• Earth to space satellite comms (27.5 - 29.5 GHz)
• Space research (37.0 - 38.6 GHz)
• Space to earth satellite comms (37.5 - 40.0 GHz)
• Inter-satellite comms (64.0 - 71.0 GHz)
• Earth exploration and space research (65.0 - 66.0 GHz)
• Radio navigation (66.0 - 71.0 GHz)

Although Summary makes it sound like this is entirely a 5G thing, the unlicensed 64-71 GHz band suffers from high attenuation due to rain and oxygen, and aren't useful for distances more than about 1 mile. So this spectrum is clearly aimed at higher speed wifi (multi-gigabit).

The things I learn about that I never need to know...

https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files...

"The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is the not-for-profit entity responsible for the technical coordination of the Internet's domain name system (DNS). On September 30, 2009, NTIA, on behalf of the U.S. Department of Commerce, reached agreement with ICANN on an Affirmation of Commitments that completed the transition of the technical coordination of the DNS to a multi-stakeholder, private-sector led model and contains provisions to ensure accountability and transparency in ICANN's decision-making with the goal of protecting the interests of global Internet users, as well as mechanisms to address the security stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS.

NTIA represents the U.S. government in ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), which is structured to provide advice to the ICANN Board on the public policy aspects of the broad range of issues pending before ICANN." [src]

While I realise some customers in the USA may have only one choice of ISP

That assumption is why you don't understand. It's not some, it's most. Here's an excerpt from a report from the US Department of Commerce:

[...] only 37 percent of the population had a choice of two or more providers at speeds of 25 Mbps or greater;only 9 percent had three or more choices.

Source.

Another article says basically the same thing, coming from the FCC.
And even when customers DO have a choice, I wonder how often one of them would offer 'Unlimited' when its competitor doesn't.

Replying to my post, because I found the Commerce Department study.

In reading the details of the study; this would beg to question how accurate the participant results are , and how many of the participants consider what being truly mobile really means, and if said views are based on users with wired internet through a wireless router using nothing but mobile devices as mobile-only within that household.

Hopefully the actual survey did a good job of preventing wired Internet with a Wi-Fi router being considered "wireless", with, for example, the survey script explicitly trying to catch that case and report it correctly.

Washington Post FTW!

The story came from them - the Seattle Times just reprinted it - and the Post's version of the story has an update, with a link to the NTIS press release, which says that "These results come from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Computer and Internet Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey (CPS), which includes data collected for NTIA in July 2015 from nearly 53,000 households."

Further digging found the aforementioned Computer and Internet Use Supplement, which is, I guess, the script used by the person who's calling the people being surveyed. It says, among other things:

If respondent indicates “Wi-Fi,” add: Do you know what kind of Internet service is connected to the Wi-Fi in your household?

to avoid "Wi-Fi" being given as the type of Internet access. The types they offer as the choice are:

1. "Mobile Internet service or a data plan for a cellular phone, smartphone, tablet, laptop, or other device" and they'll explain "This type of Internet service is provided by a wireless carrier, and may be part of a package that also includes voice calls from a cellular phone or smartphone." if necessary;
2. "High-speed Internet service installed at home, such as cable, DSL, or fiber- optic service" and they'll explain "This type of Internet service is often provided by a cable company or phone company." if necessary;
3. "Satellite Internet service";
4. "Dial-up service";
5. "Some other service", at which point they're supposed to ask "What other service?" and enter the response verbatim.

So it shouldn't result in people indicating that they have "wireless Internet" if they have wired Internet hooked up to a Wi-Fi route.

Washington Post FTW!

The story came from them - the Seattle Times just reprinted it - and the Post's version of the story has an update, with a link to the NTIS press release, which says that "These results come from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Computer and Internet Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey (CPS), which includes data collected for NTIA in July 2015 from nearly 53,000 households."

Further digging found the aforementioned Computer and Internet Use Supplement, which is, I guess, the script used by the person who's calling the people being surveyed. It says, among other things:

If respondent indicates “Wi-Fi,” add: Do you know what kind of Internet service is connected to the Wi-Fi in your household?

to avoid "Wi-Fi" being given as the type of Internet access. The types they offer as the choice are:

1. "Mobile Internet service or a data plan for a cellular phone, smartphone, tablet, laptop, or other device" and they'll explain "This type of Internet service is provided by a wireless carrier, and may be part of a package that also includes voice calls from a cellular phone or smartphone." if necessary;
2. "High-speed Internet service installed at home, such as cable, DSL, or fiber- optic service" and they'll explain "This type of Internet service is often provided by a cable company or phone company." if necessary;
3. "Satellite Internet service";
4. "Dial-up service";
5. "Some other service", at which point they're supposed to ask "What other service?" and enter the response verbatim.

So it shouldn't result in people indicating that they have "wireless Internet" if they have wired Internet hooked up to a Wi-Fi route.

Figures it's from that seattle times electronic rag.

No - as the article says:

By Brian Fung
The Washington Post

so it's from the Washington Post.

Here's the Post's version of the story. It actually has a link to the NTIS press release, which the Seattle Times version doesn't, so, yeah, I'd say "rag" for a publisher republishing it without the damn link.

It (encryption tech) is already a controlled export - why not just turn those same standards around on the citizens?

http://www.bis.doc.gov/index.p...

http://www.bis.doc.gov/index.p...

It (encryption tech) is already a controlled export - why not just turn those same standards around on the citizens?

http://www.bis.doc.gov/index.p...

http://www.bis.doc.gov/index.p...

Documents Pertaining to the Addition of ZTE Corporation and Related Entities to the Entity List

BIS has added ZTE Corporation and three affiliated entities to the Entity List. The Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to Part 744) includes foreign entities that are subject to specific license requirements for the export, reexport, or transfer of items subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).

Click here to view the rule.

The principal bases for the addition of these entities were two ZTE corporate documents entitled “Report Regarding Comprehensive Reorganization and the Standardization of the Company Export Control Related Matters” and “Proposal for Import and Export Control Risk Avoidance.” These documents outline a ZTE-developed scheme to violate U.S. export control laws by establishing, controlling, and using a series of “detached” (e.g., shell or front) companies to illicitly reexport controlled items to sanctioned countries without authorization.
These documents, in original language and English translation, are:
1. “Report Regarding Comprehensive Reorganization and the Standardization of the Company Export Control Related Matters”
Mandarin
English
2. “Proposal for Import and Export Control Risk Avoidance”
Mandarin
English

Documents Pertaining to the Addition of ZTE Corporation and Related Entities to the Entity List

BIS has added ZTE Corporation and three affiliated entities to the Entity List. The Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to Part 744) includes foreign entities that are subject to specific license requirements for the export, reexport, or transfer of items subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).

Click here to view the rule.

The principal bases for the addition of these entities were two ZTE corporate documents entitled “Report Regarding Comprehensive Reorganization and the Standardization of the Company Export Control Related Matters” and “Proposal for Import and Export Control Risk Avoidance.” These documents outline a ZTE-developed scheme to violate U.S. export control laws by establishing, controlling, and using a series of “detached” (e.g., shell or front) companies to illicitly reexport controlled items to sanctioned countries without authorization.
These documents, in original language and English translation, are:
1. “Report Regarding Comprehensive Reorganization and the Standardization of the Company Export Control Related Matters”
Mandarin
English
2. “Proposal for Import and Export Control Risk Avoidance”
Mandarin
English

Documents Pertaining to the Addition of ZTE Corporation and Related Entities to the Entity List

BIS has added ZTE Corporation and three affiliated entities to the Entity List. The Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to Part 744) includes foreign entities that are subject to specific license requirements for the export, reexport, or transfer of items subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).

Click here to view the rule.

The principal bases for the addition of these entities were two ZTE corporate documents entitled “Report Regarding Comprehensive Reorganization and the Standardization of the Company Export Control Related Matters” and “Proposal for Import and Export Control Risk Avoidance.” These documents outline a ZTE-developed scheme to violate U.S. export control laws by establishing, controlling, and using a series of “detached” (e.g., shell or front) companies to illicitly reexport controlled items to sanctioned countries without authorization.
These documents, in original language and English translation, are:
1. “Report Regarding Comprehensive Reorganization and the Standardization of the Company Export Control Related Matters”
Mandarin
English
2. “Proposal for Import and Export Control Risk Avoidance”
Mandarin
English

Documents Pertaining to the Addition of ZTE Corporation and Related Entities to the Entity List

BIS has added ZTE Corporation and three affiliated entities to the Entity List. The Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to Part 744) includes foreign entities that are subject to specific license requirements for the export, reexport, or transfer of items subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).

Click here to view the rule.

The principal bases for the addition of these entities were two ZTE corporate documents entitled “Report Regarding Comprehensive Reorganization and the Standardization of the Company Export Control Related Matters” and “Proposal for Import and Export Control Risk Avoidance.” These documents outline a ZTE-developed scheme to violate U.S. export control laws by establishing, controlling, and using a series of “detached” (e.g., shell or front) companies to illicitly reexport controlled items to sanctioned countries without authorization.
These documents, in original language and English translation, are:
1. “Report Regarding Comprehensive Reorganization and the Standardization of the Company Export Control Related Matters”
Mandarin
English
2. “Proposal for Import and Export Control Risk Avoidance”
Mandarin
English

Documents Pertaining to the Addition of ZTE Corporation and Related Entities to the Entity List

BIS has added ZTE Corporation and three affiliated entities to the Entity List. The Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to Part 744) includes foreign entities that are subject to specific license requirements for the export, reexport, or transfer of items subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).

Click here to view the rule.

The principal bases for the addition of these entities were two ZTE corporate documents entitled “Report Regarding Comprehensive Reorganization and the Standardization of the Company Export Control Related Matters” and “Proposal for Import and Export Control Risk Avoidance.” These documents outline a ZTE-developed scheme to violate U.S. export control laws by establishing, controlling, and using a series of “detached” (e.g., shell or front) companies to illicitly reexport controlled items to sanctioned countries without authorization.
These documents, in original language and English translation, are:
1. “Report Regarding Comprehensive Reorganization and the Standardization of the Company Export Control Related Matters”
Mandarin
English
2. “Proposal for Import and Export Control Risk Avoidance”
Mandarin
English

Many areas use whoever had the first claim to the local water supply for a given area as the basis for who gets that water. Not what does the greatest good, not what makes the most economic sense, but merely the first to file. Then this right is locked in. The radio spectrum is similar however unlike water which is a local problem this causes problems for much of the globe. Think of the convenience of having most of the globe use 2.4GHz. Make a device once, use it anywhere. How grand. However things could be *much* better if more bandwidth was available globally. That's why I liken it to water rights - another archaic system but one that people more often understand. Here's a chart that shows how spectrum is allocated in the US for those who are curious: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files...

> One would think that in 2015, executives would digitally sign their e-mails

Unfortunately, building in digital signatures, means bundling good encryption into common email clients. They're tightly linked technologies, it's awkward if not impossible to have one without the other. That implies coping with the US Department of Commerce, whose regulations are at https://www.bis.doc.gov/index..... Note that similar versoins of those regulations were previously handled by US Customs, but suffered many legal challenges and wee simply transferred to the Dapartment of Commerce to avoid having to follow various legal decisions on their constitutionality and re-apply them as part of a different federal agency.

These regulations are onerous for businesses engaging in telecommunications. They have effectively hindered and prevented such encryption and digital signatures from becoming widespread for at least the last 30 years. They've also prevented the widespread use of encryption at the Ethernet card or "data link layer": the regulations create unmanagable burdens for companies that want to sell the appropriate switches and network devices.

Growth continues to increase... It's a myth that production is no longer done in the US.
http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/d...

Additionally, I know exactly no one who's ever considered moving due to taxation - nobody with any wealth does. The noise about taxation seems to come from those who have no assets to tax. I don't know why they worry. I pay my taxes and have ample means of tax avoidance if I so desire. I don't mind my taxes, at all, but I do mind how they're spent.

I stumbled on this informative report which details the FCC's issues with 5GHz band interference. See page 3-4 for details on the interference problems.

I learned a lot about frequency sharing from this technical report. It's well worth a read.

Which may or may not be relevant. Since we do not know that the two events were not caused by common point of failure (i.e. the fiber backbone and microwave system were powered by the same system, etc) then we can't know the likelihood of it happening again, and again, and again. That's what the risk analysis is for. Perhaps a third option really is the cheapest way forward.

From a political point of view, this can be leveraged into something a little more significant. Consider
http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/grant...
They were granted $8M to improve their backbone. Perhaps a decent politician can now leverage this outage into $16M.

Bandwidth is not infinite, and due to that, it won't scale up.

This is one of those pie in the sky solutions that simply doesn't scale, and even if it could, would manage to only work by stealing other spectrum, and in the end runs up against the physical fact that there isn't any more spectrum being made: Here's the spectrum chart reality check:

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/...

Pick who you are going to kick off.

The future of the net, and wireless is going to be in the opposite direction, of getting as much as possible in fiber, where spectrum actually can get close to infinite, because if you need more bandwidth, you add seperate fibers. Then that last few feet is wireless. maybe even @ infrared.

All else is just tricks and research funding bait.

Disagree with the above. While it is true that some things can be offshored, key technologies that fall under ITAR/EAR regulated by the State Department and Department of Commerce respectively require a US person to conduct the work.

http://www.state.gov/strategic...

https://www.bis.doc.gov/index....

You see, the US Government is very keen about governing exports. They prohibit shipping many products into restricted countries and they actively police it in a serious manner. Anyone who's product gets found in a restricted country is in hot water. It doesn't matter if the product(s) was sold through an intermediary or 20 middle men, the manufacturer is 100% responsible for asserting, under penalty of law, that their products will not end up in a restricted country and that's that. The treasury department even publishes a monthly list of offenders they catch but I apologize as I cannot seem to find it on google.

To address this issue, many companies that have been caught are required by the US Treasury Dept to document every single end user of their product. Yes, every single unit that is sold must be documented as to where it's final resting place is. I doubt Cisco is under this kind of requirement (unless they've been caught in the past) but it seems this new policy is a huge risk for them in that area. If you were an Iranian supply store trying to procure Cisco equipment, this seems like a good way to do it without anyone knowing or being able to track it --- and that's a serious risk for Cisco.

The minute one of those units gets found in Iran (or any restricted country), all hell will break loose. Again, it doesn't really matter how it got there.....

Here is a good overview of the requirements and Here is a company that has a good policy summary that they live by. Smart on them.

Understand that this has nothing to do with NSA or espionage. This is just a basic requirement of doing business overseas and exporting products. Doesn't matter whether it's plastic dog poo, Intel CPU's, lab equipment, cranes, or other engineered equipment

Is this StingRay thing even FCC licenced? What about the operators?

The operators are FBI. They aren't subject to FCC rules or licenses. NTIA.

The space between 100 MHz and 165 MHz would constitute 65 MHz of spectrum. So would the space between 1 GHz and 1.065 GHz, or 1 KHz and 65.001 MHz.

According to this US government source, this auction was for 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz and 2155-2180 MHz -- a 15 MHz band and two 25-MHz bands, totaling 65 MHz.

To a first approximation, 65MHz of spectrum gives you a fixed amount of capacity, regardless of its start and end points.

Your toy is not a serious problem.

People who fly anything more than a pre made toy don't use 5.8ghz, it sucks ass for range. 2.4ghz is only marginally better, and anyone who actually cares uses 900mhz.

As was stated if you'd bothered to read, the bandwidth in question is also right around the area used by most doppler radar stations, which means random broadcasts from unregulated devices screw with doppler radar.

For sure. Remember though, we are dealing with digital people. While they know their digital, they make a few glaring errors when dealing with RF.

Going to go into a related rant now.......

One of them is the weird idea that somehow, some way, bandwidth is infinite. It isn't. One of the best charts I've ever seen to illustrate this is here:

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/...

I have a 6 foot version printed out on the wall. I like to invite people to pick out some free space for their digital wifi.

Some times I think that biggest thing 2.4 GHz and above has going for it is that short range. Because that's the only way you are going to be able to stuff all the people who want to run wireless onto wireless - for now.

900 MHz will definitely work better- certainly it penetrates buildings better and travels further. That of course means that it will get crowded all that much more quickly and of course, the lower in frequency the more likely regular propagation effects will occur. I've actually heard digital people talk of using HF frequencies. Nothing like using frequencies where people have communicated around the world on insanely low power levels. So like maybe 500 people will get service worldwide Until Solar activity nukes the band. Working above the MUF can be helpful in some cases. HF is an unruly neighborhood.

Another digital myth is that it will co-exist with everyone else. DIgital signals don't play well with their neighbors, especially those that use weak signals, like GPS or Doppler Radar as you noted. (disclaimer, the doppler radar goes out pretty strong, but comes back fairly weak)

Even the ill fated BPL service, tried to notch out the frequencies of licensed services, like Amateur radio, or trans polar airline flights, but among other things, intermodulation got them interfering anyhow. And the closer to a modulated square wave on the rf signal, the more unwanted signal generation we get. So frequencies get generated in places we don't want them.

Some people have even tried to get the rules rewritten so that licensed services were not allowed to interfere with th eunlicensed ones, but the unlicensed ones were alloed to interfere with the licensed ones. - after it was found out that really low powered radios would knock out a BPL service for miles around. Insanity. Finally to the dismay of Facebook checkers and pr0n watchers and their smartphones and the other wifi users, a day of reckoning cometh. As more and more of us put more and more on wireless, there will be less and less space availble to use. We might try workarounds like spread spectrum, (watch the noise floor) but I'm pretty certain that eventually we'll go back to wire or fiber, in a "last feet' setup and use IR wireless routers in every room. There really won't be much else to do for it, lest we go without.

Yikes, I got a little long winded there, Sorry about that! But we're dealing with people who need a little more study about what they are proposing. It's disheartening to read about efforts that I know will fail by the time I hit the second paragraph.