Slashdot Mirror
FCC Petitioned to Restrict 2.4GHz Band
Mean_Nishka writes: "Internet News is reporting that satellite radio provider Sirius is petitioning the FCC to regulate and hinder providers of 802.11b based networks. Sirius claims their radios operate at frequencies only 55mhz lower than wifi's range, and fear that Wifi users could interfere (especially mobile and internet service providers). This could effectively kill free networks nationwide..."
But doesn't this affect data networks? I mean over at NerdTreeHouse they are setting up a huge wireless data network that sounds sweet. What would happen if we all just did this?
And those frequencys are .2 MHz apart!
Besides, I was under the (mistaken?) impression that one of the selling features of this satellite radio crap is that it is all digital.
Thus said, could there ever be enough bleed through to completely wipe out their signal?
OR is Sirius more afraid people will start driving around town listening to Shoutcasted streams on 802.11 networks? Oh yeah, gee, I wonder.
- JoeShmoe
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
1) Which is more important, satillite radio or wireless internet access?
2) Which is the FCC most likely to understand better?
3) Which side has more money?
I think it's obvious which side will win out (if there can be only one, that is).
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
This isn't that big of a deal.
:: The Critically Acclaimed New Linux Site. Ads Not Included.
"Besides being limited in size by FCC regulations, the 2.4-GHz band in which 802.11b products operate is becoming overcrowded. This is the same band that the long-awaited Bluetooth products, microwave ovens, some wireless speakers, and the latest wireless telephone handsets call home. Today's products already eke out all the performance they can within the band's regulatory structure, leaving very little bandwidth to accommodate next-generation needs such as video broadcasts and voice channels.
The most likely place for wireless expansion is the 5-GHz band. Its comparatively wide- open space could provide increased speed and better control over the quality of transmissions. Plans are afoot on both sides of the Atlantic to devise a suitable protocol for the 5-GHz band. Not surprisingly, the U.S. and Europe are pursuing two different and non-interoperable 5-GHz protocols."
Read the rest here.
m o n o l i n u x
1. I don't know the nature of either signal, but 55MHz is a decent amount of seperation. If there are pieces of 802.11 equipment which are really transmitting 55MHz too high, their manufactures deserve a bitchslapping from the FCC.
2. If satelite radio receivers are having a hard time dealing with a signal 55MHz away, their manufactures need to send the design teams back to school.
3. If someone is running 802.11 equipment at power levels which overwhelm nearby satelite receivers listening 55MHz away, they probably need to re-engineer their setup to use less power and/or use an antenna with a different pattern.
4. If none of the above scenarios are true, this is probably Sirius looking for a little extra elbow room. If granted, their next move (a few years from now) will probably be to pettition the FCC for use of the now underutilized spectrum.
Despite being a govenment agency, the FCC a knowledgeable technical staff to sort this kind of thing out. Occasionally the FCC even listens to them!
Come test your mettle in the world of Alter Aeon!
This crap is gonna go down in flames even faster than Iridium did.
Subscription, NON-LOCAL alleged radio, devoid of all of the values that make radio work in the first place? Bleahh!
Ever turn on AM in the am (giggle) looking for something that's NOT ART BELL? Local color?
That's what satradio is gonne be like in no time. Kiss of death. Nobody's gonna pay for the kind of homogenised drivel satradio will become within (mark my words) two years.
Can't wait to see the pretty lights when they deorbit those puppies luminescently.
THAT, I'd pay money for
>8->
Brak: What's THAT?
Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
Their business model sucks and they aren't going to survive. I've got 50 channels of radio from DirectTV I never listen to. Who's going to start paying to hear something they've been getting for free already? Besides if I want to listen to continous music coast to coast I'll put my money into a MP3 compatable car cd player and burn my own.
You've already spent significant amounts of money on WiFi. If your equipment gets outlawed (and that can actually be enforced), They (being whoever Sirius is acting on the behalf of in this lawsuit...either themselves or some big wireless networking company who might benefit) would have an easier time selling a competing standard, since the incumbent technology would be out, and the manufacturers of that equipment would not be ready with replacements.
And Freemasons run the country.
who originally petitioned the FCC to allocate a segment of spectrum specifically for unlicenced usage?
I don't recall if they were part of a group of companies, or acted on their own, but I seem to recall that they were looking for the bandwidth to support products like WiFi.
I would suspect that they, along with Motorola, Intell, a whole slew of network card manufacturers, Intersill, and many other groups would be interested in the arguments and will probably be responding.
As far as licenced/unlicenced goes, it could run either way. CB-Radio was a licenced set of spectrum when it was first popularized. When the FCC realized that they had not way to control the spectrum, it became unlicenced. Now you can still find radios, but you generally have to go hunting for them. I don't recall the last time I saw one at my local radio shack to tell the truth. Truck stops are a different matter.
Even licenced bandwidth is not immune to private interests. LPFM was attempting to licence low power transmitters so that your school, city/county council, or club could set up a radio station for people in the community to listen to as they found it interesting. By low power we are talking in the 2-5 watt range. When NPR came down against it, complaining that the channel separation authorized in the lpfm licences were too low, the possibility faded.
These are just my oppinions and personal observations. I could be wrong.
-Rusty
You never know...
NAB is fighting to get the FCC to require Sirius Satellite Radio and XM Satellite Radio publicize the location and power levels of their terrestrial repeaters to prevent interference to all licensees, not just those who paid for their spectrum.
I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
No, what your talking about is certification for electronics equipment (which states that its output in the RF area is within standards) and/or type acceptence (For RF transmitters means that it follows the FCC rules). This is totaly different from the licesening of a radio frequency!
What is ment by licensed and unlicensed is if a company or a group (in the case of ham radio and CB) has the use of a group of frequencies. The cell companies have a license, radio stations have licenses and even ham radio operators have licenses.
Do any of the 802.11x companies have a license to use the freq? NO, they don't. They just have to follow certain rules that relate to that band. They have a maximum radiation output and antenna restrictions. The problem with them is that they are allowed a certain amount of overage (out of band signals) and this is what is getting them into trouble. Sirius is asking that the out of band emessions be reduced by 30% and the the wireless people are saying they can't do that.
And BTW, not all radio equipment has to be type accepted (what your also calling licensed). As an amateur radio operator I can build eqiupment for myself all day long (for the ham bands) and never talk to the FCC.
BWP
I actually do remember a guy in the dorms in 1994 who had a P90 that interfered with his FM radio in that range. It's totally realistic, especially if we all start doing silly things like putting our PCs in plexiglass and lucite cases, instead of grounded metal ones.
Some motherboards have a bios option, "Spread Spectrum", which rounds off the square wave clock pulses, so that noise from sharp changes is lessened, IIRC. It does decrease performance, and stop some cards functioning altogether.
In regards to wireless overlap, I have two access points in my house, a 2.4 Ghz Siemens phone, a 2.4 Ghz X10 Camera, and two laptops running Orinoco Cards.
When my girlfriend and I sit on the couch (we're great big nerds), our respective laptops have their orinoco cards about 3-5 inches apart, and we have no problems communicating, and talking on the 2.4Ghz phone.
The only interference we've ever had is the 2.4Ghz phone clobbering the X10 camera. Then again, the X10 Camera and their transmitter/recievers have always been -garbage-.
I've even seen reports (with data) that make engineers ask, "how the hell is this thing even communicating?" because the signal is so bad, and the reciever so shoddy.
So much for any theories about interference.
I've got one here in my office and it blocks my 802.11b. The wireless network goes down whenever I use the phone. Why aren't they complaining about 2.4GHz phones? Maybe because the phones aren't as big a threat to the powers that be.
The ISM (2.4GHz) band is also for amateur use. If they persist lets all get Technician class licenses (no code needed) and start talking with 200 Watt rigs. Or better yet do moon bounce with 1500 Watts. They think they have probelms now from 1 watt 802.11b equipment! Check this out at: http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bands .html