Slashdot Mirror
FCC on Ultra-Wideband, DSL Services
ibirman writes: "According to Yahoo, the FCC has approved limited use of Ultrawideband (UWB) technology above 3.1 gigahertz. The article states that Sprint PCS among others has been campaigning to keep the minimum above 6 gigahertz claiming "interference". From what I have read, interference is not an issue, so I wonder what their real agenda is? Funny that the article does not mention that UWB could revolutinize high speed wireless networking." There's a Newsbytes story that decribes an upcoming ruling on DSL providers, which would exempt DSL carriers from the open-access requirements in place for most telephone services. There are a few links to statements on the front page of fcc.gov, but I don't see the actual orders for either of these yet.
In reading the story at yahoo, I found the following quote:
However, companies like mobile telephone service provider Sprint PCS and the powerful lobbying arm of the airline industry, among others, had urged the FCC to prohibit the use of UWB technologies below 6 gigahertz.
Now, I can certainly understand how a mobile phone service provider such as Sprint could have less-than-credible reasons for not wanting to move forward with this initiative... However, I do not understand what the airline industries motivation would be to get involved here except for a genuine concern for unsafe interference.
Personally, I could careless if my cell phone has a little bit of static as a result of leveraging UWB, but if my plane crashes due to interence then I may not be quite so understanding...
Then again, perhaps I am missing something obvious. Anyone have any thoughts on what ulterior motives the airline industry may have here?
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. -- Benjamin Franklin
This is going to make radio astronomy more difficult. There are several spectral lines that lie between 3 and 10 GHz (I'm assuming that 10 is somewhere near the upper limit). As if light pollution and Iridium satellites weren't bad enough for visual astronomy, now radio astronomers are going to have to deal with elevated noise levels in a few interesting lines.
It looks like business wins out over the quest for knowledge once again.
---
I didn't want to leave this space blank.
The reason Sprint probably wanted the band at a higher frequency is because higher frequency = high power needed to transmit, higher power needed = higher power batteries (AKA higher cost batteries for mobile devices), power supplies etc. With high cost of implementation comes slower adoption and therefore less new comers to the market place to compete with their existing infrastructure, services, etc.
Cell phone providors currenty have to do testing to ensure that their antennas don't interfere with with other bands - such as AM, and their are companies that do the needed engineering. Thetesting would have to be expanded to ensure new installations don't interfere with GPRs or radio-navigation.
My guess is cell phone companies:
1. - covet the frequencies for their own expansion, and or
2. - are afraid of comeptition, especially from VoIP across wireless networking. Your Palm/PocketPC could do data and voice, all without the cellphone company.
As such, I would expect them to push for regulation that drives the cost so high that the freqs go unused, so they later can "claim" them based on their lack of use.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
According to Yahoo...
No, it's a story from Reuters. The attribution is clearly given in the byline. This is a common mistake made by Slashdot article writers. Think about it a second: if I saw this article about UWB on Slashdot and posted to Kuro5hin "According to Slashdot..." my attribution would be flat wrong. It is the same with stories posted to Yahoo and other news outlets. The byline gives proper credit and should be cited as the source, not the news outlet where one happened to read the story.
Edith Keeler Must Die
has anyone pointed out there in the process of launching a new, more powerfull, more accurate GPS system to replace the one currently in opperation? just because some decade old technology doesent work with UWB interferance doesent mean the new system will. course, if it doesent, then theyve just wasted there money on a new, useless GPS... (i think this was posted on slashdot. coulda just been in new scientist or summin) and hell, the third generation of GPS will prolly work on a UWB pulsed radar system anyhow. and the US military seems to like UWB pulsed radar. seeing as they've made a few "look through this here wall" devices and a more accurate then current GPS can hope to be tracking system using UWB. (this was in a slashdot post about half a year ago... linked to fullertons homepage too.) UWB has more uses then just damn fast wireless networking.
...I got nothing.
In fact, there is no question that UWB interference occurs. The question is whether one can allow UWB to be used at any power level without seriously disrupting normal radio traffic when it becomes widely adopted.
Of course, UWB is no threat to other UWB systems. Therefore, UWB licensees would not be opposed to it. In fact, one might well interpret UWB to be an attempt at doing an end-run around current channel allocations, and, ultimately, an attempt at forcing anybody who wants to have some sort of reliable radio communications to buy proprietary UWB technology. Whether it actually is or not depends on the level of interference it causes when deployed widely, and that is still an open question.
In other words, there is no reason to rush UWB to market--we can take our time testing the technology. In fact, there is no real reason for the FCC to approve UWB before the patents run out--why should we increase the noise floor of all our channels for the benefit of a single patent holder? If UWB is still interesting after the patents run out, great.