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?
Can't Sirius just start transmitting at a different frequency? Surely it would be easier for one company to hop down the band a bit, than to kill off or change every 802.11 device. The FCC should just reassign Sirius to a new slice of the spectrum.
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
I hope, willmake siruss show how exactly this will break the signal. I cannot immagine my microwave disrupting my Satelite radio.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Okay...how long ago did people start using 2.4Ghz for things - perhaps at that point Sirius should have thought things out.
:)
And even then - they are complaining they have spent sooo much money on something not even in place yet, so everyone else with stuff out there already should spend money just because it might interfere with the Sirius stuff.
Hell...I'll hook my AP antenna up to 220V to see if I can knock out the whole southeast for sat radio
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
As I recall, XM Radio and Sirius did pay a good deal of money to broadcast in the 2.4GHz band, so obviously satellite radio is the winner in this case. :-P (which is quite fine with me, 'cause I love my XM radio)
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!
Radios are all well and good, but I don't use them anymore. I've got every song I could ever want on my iPod, and it plays crystal clear music all the time in my truck through my Alpine (which happens to be XM capable - the irony of it all).
... is there some way I can dial-up my microwave with my cordless phone? I guess they must use different parts of the 2.4Ghz spectrum, but that would be kind of funny. Gives new meaning to "dialing out for dinner".
The reach of the petition is widespread, affecting industries as relatively small as the fixed wireless industry to everyday industries whose existence is almost ubiquitous in American households -- digital TVs and microwave ovens.
"We're from the FCC and we have an order forcing you to leave your microwave on thaw."
Just wait until Intel releases 2.4GHz Pentium 4. I wonder if FCC will tell Intel to use another frequency.
802.11 interferes w/ the head-tracker we use at our school for 3D stuff. We basically need a TEMPEST-protected room so we can play w/ our 3d toys.
Maybe sirius should use 3D differential phase decoding to "listen" to a frequency at a location. Basically, two or more antennas allow you to discriminate among different sources, just like how your ears and brain work; as a practical example, using three antennas prevent jamming of GPS by enemy noise sources. The GPS antijam method uses constellation position prediction and real-time kinematic (motion) compensation (doppler shift, etc.) upon the sender's signal and receiver's motion, note this is wholy listener-side compensation, no mods to GPS constellation are needed for antijam technology. If sirius is broadcast-only, then they need to mod their receivers to use this type of technology. Why force restrictions on existing equipment for people trying to be fancy w/ their new toys? Screw em if they can't play w/ others already out on the field.
We can get alot more bandwidth if we use this type of technology along with CDMA-type encoding. It might be slightly more expensive and logistically prohibitive, but economical use of bandwidth demands it.
The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
This is HUGE. Many wireless ISPs already functioning with the 2.4GHz range. Plust free networks are springing up like www.seattlewireless.org and www.houstonwireless.org, there are tons. And you say its no big deal that they will have to scrap their equipment? All of them??
Protocols will not eliminate interference. 5GHz has different transmission properties than 2.4 GHz. It a different frequency. Many WISPs were already bracing for this and expect to have to move into 5GHz, but 5GHz is handled just the same as 2.4 so far. 802.11a is already out there at 5GHz.
If the FCC wants to do somethign they need to give a unlicensed range for specifically data communications only.
Honestly, who gives a damn about satellite radio. More people are using wireless internet that satellite radio.
for example, a person in an office complex tunes into the XM hip-hop station. Because some idiot was using an ibook with a wireless Airport card, Snoop dog is dropped from the ceiling all mutated and deformed!
:)
Again, serious implications!
First off - Satellite transmissions are orchestrated on a
an international basis. You don't put one up without
co-ordinating where it's going to go.
Sirius is a licensed service. 802.11 isn't. The
general rule is that unlicensed services have to shut
down if the licensed service is troubled.
At the same time - I've got to think that Sirius should
have seen this coming BIG TIME and don't think they
have a snow-ball's chance to get 802.11 shutdown. The FCC
is nothing if not a bit practical about such things.
How would you enforce shutting down every device already
shipped???? If Sirius didn't do an adequate engineering job
to create their service - tough titties.
Have you compiled your kernel today??
I would think that XM Satellite radio would have more problems with the 2.4 GHz unlicensed frequency than Sirius. XM's signals are closer to the unlicensed frequencies.
And if the unlicensed frequencies at 2.4 GHz are giving them problems what about XM Radio transmitting at 2000 watts with their repeaters at 2.34 GHz. Is it a problem with harmonics?
This doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
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!
If sirrus is really worried about the "small" gap of 55Mhz interfering with their broadcast, then there are other things for them to do. Since sirrus is a broadcaster, why not invest in a little time and equipment, and then HEY, you could broadcast to all the wireless lans out there with a simple firmware update to recieve it properly. money making oppurtunity (yes, i reach XXXXXXXX # of users (nm that only 5 of those actually listen to it ;))). Cmon honestly, this is digital communication, we can encode bits so many ways that theres room enough for the bandwagon plus some. Stop complaining and look for a profit by adapting 802.11b.
This
Promix tried this last year. Mostly it was a hissy fit over INTEL dropping them. Consider that a lot of the Big Chip manufacturers (INTEL, MOTOROLA, TI, etc) stand to make a bundle in the next ten years from wireless net and related products. I would start looking at who is behind this. Mayhaps the usual suspects? RIAA? AOL Time Warner? RAMBUS?
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
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.
Since free wireless networks potentially open the Internet to everybody (even without access to a phone), could it be argued that restricting 802.11 networks is a violation of our first amendment rights? Technically a free 802.11 network is a public forum.
Free wireless are about to become as big as open source, MP3, and even the Internet itself. Let's hope greed will not get in the way.
But if worse comes to worse I'll buy up a bunch of microwave ovens, trip the door sensor, point a million pringles cans towards the sky, and show them what real 2.4 ghz interference is like :).
www.lonseidman.com
But isn't the purpose of the FCC to work for the benefit of the general public? I mean that is the point of the FCC, to regulate the airwaves since the current view is that the airwaves belong to everyone...
That being true, wouldn't it only make sense for the FCC to tell Sirus to go back to the drawing board... 802.11 has been around for a while now, and I would have thought anyone with common sense would have thought to see if this would be a problem. Because Sirus didn't plan around this, I don't see how they can just step in now and demand sweeping changes that will destroy many companies and hinder thousands of businesses and cause millions in losses. How can the FCC protect one company's investment at the expense of so many others?
Well, then again, this is the FCC we are talking about... not exactly the most efficient or best policy making body there is... what can I say?
In my opinion at least, 802.11 was there first, 2.4Ghz has been in use for a long time before Sirus was even thought about, so I would think it would be Sirus's responsibility to fix their problem, not the FCC and millions of Americans to work around Sirus.
"We shall show mercy, but we shall not ask for it" -- Winston Churchill
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.
In any case, I don't think they have much to worry about. Come on, 55MHz is a lot of spectrum between them and 802.11b.
On the other hand, I also don't think that rampant commercial use of 802.11b is desirable either. If you want to use it at home, that's fine. If some ISP uses it to provide service, I think that's not OK, not because it interferes with Sirius but because it interferes with private users of the spectrum.
If the geeks of the world can restrain themselves from buying their sattelite radio garbage Sirius will go backrupt. I personally just find it amusing that yet another tentacle of the entertainment industry is holding back progress.
The fact is that 802.11b channels are only 25MHz wide. And 802.11b equipment is quite capable of working with adjoining 'cells' butted right up against each other. Check out this table. The non-overlappig channels are 1,6 and 11. Total center-to-center separation? 50Mhz between channels 1 and 11 with room for a channel in between. If Sirius has a problem with 802.11b I'm going to hazard a guess it's because their receivers are crap. I'll bet that they are receiving part of the legitimate 802.11b signal.
;-)
I've actually run tests to see how well two access points work if you locate them close together (about 4 feet). You can see a writeup of all the tests I did here: Interference Tests. When I tried to run two laptops connected to two access points on channels 1 and 6, I found a little interference. Not much. Maybe a 20% drop in total thruput. Once I went to channels 1 and 7 (30MHz separation) the two access points operated with no detectable interference at all. The aggregate thruput was basically 2x the thruput of a single access point. (Note that the 209% and 212% results are because I was using laptop to ap traffic as the baseline, but the equipment I was using produced higher thruput in the ap to laptop direction)
While the interference at channels 1 and 6 technically shouldn't happen, no body in their right mind puts two access points four feet apart and tries to run them both at full bore. So the radios could be a little better. But even in this worst-case scenario, all interference disappeared at 30MHz separation. And Sirius is complaining about 55MHz separation? Almost twice the distance?
What Sirius is finding out is that the idea of transmitting from a satallite to a non-directional antenna is extremely hard. That's probably why the other sat radio company XM plans to spend ~$250,000,000 dollars building a system of terrestrial repeaters! It's hard to link to, but check out the 10-Q SEC filing on their web site if you don't belive me. I can't find it now, but another SEC filing in there goes into detail about the need for repeaters because they know their signal can't be reliably received inside a major metropolitan area.
If Sirius has burned thru $3 billion and still doesn't have a reliable system, well boo hoo. The only reliable sat-based communications I know of use directional dish antenna's. (Please don't use GPS as a comeback because it doesn't have to work in a lot of places that a car radio has to, and it carries almost no information in the signal.) Irridium tried it and failed. Sirius apparently can't get it to work, and I'm going to guess that they will soon be history. As for XM, well, I think they got it to work, but only by spending a fortune on repeaters so most of their customers probably aren't even using the satellites! I think XM is going to go down the tubes anyway since they probably need to get at least 1,000,000 paying customers this year to keep going.
So I think Sirius and XM are going to follow Irridium down the tubes. And life will go on. As every good capitalist knows, massive failures prove the resiliancy of our system. That's what's know as "The Enron Axiom".
But doesnt it feel nice to know that wherever you are in this great country of ours you can turn on the radio and hear Rush Limbaughs voice. (yes this was sarcasm)
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...
I used to work on Transmitters and Receivers and I can say that 55MHZ is a lot of seperation. The one thing that we were concerned about was something called Harmonics and Intermodulation Distortion. IE: a frequency of lets say 225 MHZ might also have a Harmonic at 450 MHZ etc... They were normally multiples of the original frequency. But the transmitters that we worked on also had power levels of approx 10,000 watts per transmitter (HF) and very large directional antennas. I'm thinking that these wifi cards are putting out signals in the order of milliwatts so interference should be very localized if any at all. I doubt that Intermodulation Distortion could cause such a wide shift in frequency as well.
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!
Zoid is petitioning the FCC to hinder Sirius Satellite Radio. Zoid claims their 802.11 radios operate at frequencies only 55mhz higher than Sirius' range, and fear that Sirius' transmitters could interfere with mobile data and internet service providers. h
Zoid.com
I will start telling you i really would hate 802.11b networks to dissaper, but Sirius got his point, he is using that frequency for long, paid, build and mantain it using it, if there is one network administrator reading this he will understand for sure what a pain would be to change the frequency
Anyway, its FCC duty to establish standards for communication, i read other posts and looks like a lot of ppl think standards should stop to let 802.11b continue (clearly because they want to explode their geeky potential) but thanks to standard we have so many things: Just think about the serialbars on every product u got from the supermarket, the workers just pass the product on the laser beams and "BING", everything appers on the items list screen even with the disscounts... all companys follow some rules when puting a serialbar code on their products and thanks to this and the standards we can finish our visit to the supermarket in 5 mins. Now just think a lot of geeks started to put serialbars on every product they found... the database where the product catalog are will become a mess and you would need to wait 10 minutes while the worker looks for every product the price.
------ If you have a problem with my english talk with my teacher and stop bugging me!
Sigs are for morons... Wait a minute...
I bet Sirius is owned in whole or in part by media conglomerates who are members of the Evil Axis (RIAA, MPAA). With that in mind, doesn't this make sense? They are just trying to shut down another way for people to trade copyrighted content.
Another thought- eliminating competition:
What if 802.11 really becomes ubiquitous, blanketing the countryside with access. At that point, couldn't the smart boys and girls start routing the traffic independently, i.e. a new network "above" the internet? With appropriate hardware, and good enough coverage, Gnutella or Freenet type P2P could replace satellite music services with the People's own Radio Free Network.
The corporations are quite used to using the laws of the land to control the people, and I see this as just anoter example. Laws are easy to buy.
-- Don't call me "Sir," I increase entropy for a living!
Well well well. I wonder hwo the FCC is going to rule on THIS little gem. There's money to be made, so I'm just a little bit convinced that the public is gonna get screwed. "Here, have this nice wireless spectrum for the betterment of your community. Oh wait! These guys wanna make some MONEY off of it! Well by all means let us bend over and let em do whatever the fuck they want!"
Call me cynical. Call me old fashioned. Hell, call me liberal. But I seem to remember a day when there were actually people in politically powerful positions who believed that promoting the common good and promoting industry were at times separate things, and that when they came into conflict they should be viewed as equally important. Now it seems that damn near everybody is of the belief that the promotion of industry *is* the promotion of the common good. Disney wants Mickey copyrighted for another 30 years? No problem! After all, it's in the public's best interest to keep Disney afloat! You want low power FM? Sorry! That might interfere with the profitability of Clear Channel, and that's not in the public's interest!
Fuck that. The broadcast industry just had $50billion worth of digital TV spectrum just handed to them on a silver platter. They can suffer whatever work arounds are necessary so that they don't interfere with 802.11b. Fuck em.
- Rev.do you know how spread spectrum technology works? If set up properly only recievers with a certian psuedo random sequence would recieve their transmitters that frequency hop with the exact same sequence - which is probably why the usaf claims their awacs network is un-jammable. No the protocols won't save it - but spread spectrum will.
The beauty of spread spectrum is on narrow band recievers the only interference you hear is low background noise. I have no idea if 802.11 is spread spectrum or narrow band - but either way there's room for more devices on there.
Back in simpler times, when the airwaves were not filled with 1800CDMA and 900TDMA conversations, RC controllers, garage door openers, and 2000 channels of premium television services, the FCC had a fairly easy job enforcing their rules on spectrum use. They could enumerate every single transmitter within a major city, because the number of transmitters could be counted on one hand. Nowadays, however, the FCC has no idea what traverses the airwaves, doesn't care to locate rogue or illegal transmitters, and wouldn't have the resources it needs to find them even if it did care.
To support this claim, allow me just a few examples:
- My employer purchased about two dozen commercial UHF two-way radios
several years ago. The FCC regulations require that a $75 license fee be
paid to use these radios. My employer and several other companies I know
of have never been forced to pay this fee; it is merely a "sucker tax."
- The last three PCs I have purchased were from hole-in-the-wall
vendors who used several critical components that were not licensed for FCC
Class B or Class A use; in order words, these devices are illegal
because they give off way too much RF radiation. Does the FCC care? Hell
no. The chink I bought the PCs from told me that a dissatisfied customer
once threatened to report him to the FCC; the FCC called him, asked if he
was in compliance, and closed the case when he said "yes."
- One of my friends built his own spark-gap based police radar jammer,
which he installed in his car. The jammer makes it very difficult for any
RF device at all (including FM radios and TVs) to work within about a
250-ft radius. Has the FCC shown up on his doorstep? Certainly not.
- There are millions of 802.11b devices out there. Nobody will
bother to get a license, because nobody cares about intricacies of the
law in this country. There are so many criminal offenses that knowing
about them all, much less enforcing them, is close to impossible.
Just my 2c.Bill
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the FCC's job is to server the public interest by regulating radio spectrum. So can somebody explain to me how a subscription digital radio service is more in the public interest than wireless data networks? With any luck all the hardware manufacturers will go write their lobbyists some checks and keep the FCC out of this.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Bandwidth licensing annoys the crap out of me. Not only do us poor wireless schmoes have to use the resonent-frequency-of-water-molecule-so-no-bloody
</rant>
:wq
Knowing about all those laws is a crime too now :)
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
While nobody paid the government for the frequencies that 802.11, there is a huge amount of business going on it 802.11 equipment. The amount of business thriving off the sale of 802.11 equipment dwarfs what little Sirius has manged to do. Ultimately the FCC doesn't care about the money that comes in from a spectrum sale, it's not like they get to keep it. They care about politics, and what will decide this is who can apply the most political pressure. Can Sirius trump Cisco, Lucent, Intel, and all the other electronics companies making a killing in the 802.11 market? Doubtful.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Did you miss that someone actually has to pay for the internet connection? Unless MCI*Worldcom themselves put up a wireless connectino and just let people leech off their bandwidth, it's not free.
Um, yes but if a neighborhood sets up a wireless lan, it wouldn't cost anyone anything.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
The last three PCs I have purchased were from hole-in-the-wall vendors who used several critical components that were not licensed for FCC Class B or Class A use; in order words, these devices are illegal because they give off way too much RF radiation. Does the FCC care? Hell no. The chink I bought the PCs from told me that a dissatisfied customer once threatened to report him to the FCC; the FCC called him, asked if he was in compliance, and closed the case when he said "yes."
Chink?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
It's got some good info in it. At the very least, you'll find out that it's part of a bigger request for comments by the FCC on "whether it [the FCC] should change its emissions limits for the restricted bands above 38.6 GHz, and whether the Commision should apply its emissions limits to receivers that tune above 960 MHz." It's also got some of Sirius' technical evidence in support of their claims.
And here's a choice quote:
BTW, this is a public document. I'm not sure if it's on fcc.gov yet but it should be someday...if you can wade through their multiple search engines and multiple data formats. You'll be able to track any replies."This band is your band. This band is my band..."
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
Sirius is out of their mind. If they actually think for a sec. that anybody will listen to them whine and cry about a service which nobody has actually subscribed to yet interfering with well established wirelss networks, they have another thing comming. I don't give a damn about sat. radio, nor does anybody else. They should have had the insight to realize that they created a service which interfers with a commonly used bandwidth. If they were actually that stupid, they deserve to have wasted all that $$ on their ridiculious capitol and just sell it along with Motorola's junk space trash.
This will sound like flamebait, but you know, fuck Sirius. XM has better programming, better customer service (for example, I e-mailed the programming folks and got a response...in ONE DAY...from the HEAD of the Programming Dept... have you ever seen that from another company?), better personality.
Let Sirius wallow in their own mistakes on band choice (you know, a little industry research could have solved this), and meander over to http://www.xmradio.com. I have been a loyal subscriber from December, and I have not been let down, not once. Absolutely the best $9.95/month I have ever spent.
Ryan
"All your base are belong to this file I send in order to have your advice."
The way these things work is that interference of any substantial amount is illegal for all radio operators, including amateurs. You have to prove interference not just wave the possibility around. The FCC has no reason to take any action against 802.11b after allowing this spectrum for this purpose in this first place. Sirius will only gather a lot of ill-will from cluefull would-be customers. Dumb move!
IIRC each store maintains it's own stock based in part on what it believes it can sell. The chain as a whole does sell several models of CB rigs, however the stores near me, not having sold any lately have moved into 49mhz, frs, and other equipment. I suspect I would be just as likely to find a 10 meter rig locally, as I personally know at least two Hams in the area, but I would havee to spend quite a bit of time watching for CB antenas in the area, that are not on trucks.
But that may be just my neck of the woods. Your local RS is probably provisioned differently.
Then again I could be wrong...
-Rusty
You never know...
Personally, I'd think that something like 30+Ghz line-of-signt microwave would work for connecting cities, but I doubt there would be enough people with the required knowledge to set that up in every city. That, and although the actual transciever equipment might not cost that much ($400 or so, homebuilt) the comm towers to put it on would be a lot more difficult/expensive.
Then again, maybe somebody will take a page from Dave Gingery's books and build the towers from pop-cans ;)
Personally, I'd love to be involved in such a project, but I'm so far out in the middle of nowhere that I'm not sure of the use. Although I do have a printed circuit board lab sitting around here, and it would be fun.
Hardware, software, and blinking lights!
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.
Why don't they just shift frequencies ? The 2.4ghz range is an unlicensed spectrum, anyone can do whatever the hell they want with it, within reasonable power limits. If they're afraid of being squashed by WiFi then it's tough luck.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
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
People often raise important concerns on slashdot, and people here are many of those most impacted by a change to FCC rules. So... post your comments somewhere they will make a difference.
g i? native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6512980637
Read Sirius' argument. Think about how they may be exagerating or mistating any problems. Think about how changes would impact you and suggest what should be done to correct any real concerns.
Then give the FCC your input and "file a comment" to the proceeding.
The FCC talks about WIFI and others in terms of where they come in their rules, eg. Part 15 & 18. You can track the proceeding on the FCC's website by looking for Sirius' name, date they filed (Jan 23), that it's "Part 15 & 18", and by the docket number (when it's issued). This is probably something the office of engineering and technology wwould look at. You can also track the proceeding through the website.
In the meantime read the petition Sirius has filed at:
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.c
The 802.11b uses 2.4GHz portion of the spectrum also known as the ISM band. ISM stands for Industrual, Scientific and Medical. When the ISM band was opened up for communications purposes in 1985, the deal was that communications equipment had to accept and tolerate other non-communications equipment that radiate in the same band. ISM communications gear is not allowed to force non-communications gear to change to enable or enhance ISM band communications. Examples of non-communications users of the ISM band include microwave ovens and some high efficiency industrial lights. The net of this is that ISM band communications, including 802.11b, is already regulated by a strict set of requirements mostly to preserve the rights of the previous and current non-communications users. Placing additional restrictions on 802.11b users would also affect the non-communications users of the ISM band.
If it's bad publicity with the main customer segment (namely the crowd with the 802.11b stuff...) then it's bad for them instead of good for them.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
According to the Seattle Wireless FAQ:
"How are clients authenticated to the network?
All access is free and unencrypted to all. Of course, you may tunnel through the 10.net LAN to your destination using any number of schemes. In other words, clients are not authenticated to the network, and security is up to you. Caveat emptor."
What this means is that they are creating essentially what the post office has created with the anonymous mailbox on every corner. Someone could connect up by driving by, drop the next big virus into the Internet and leave practically no trail.
Sirius' complaint just be another argument for what the government may already want to do.
We'd like to know a little bit about you for our files
802.11b devices come under FCC regulation part 15. That means they must NOT interfere with licenced operation, and they must ACCEPT interference from licenced operators. Keeping that in mind. As a person licenced to use the 2.4Gc band (among others) I can put up 1500 Watt FM TV repeater on that band and there is nothing that the wireless internet folks can do about it. Part 15 devices are the lowest of the low (even lower than CB) when it comes to radio spectrum use. With being said, the FCC is likeley to grant Sirius's request.
BTW Sirius cannot keep crap out of their receivers that is 55Mc away? I've done better than that on the 2.4Gc band, building my own stuff.
--Radio, the complex made simple. Computers, the simple made complex.
There are several issues that haven't been addressed in this thread. If you haven't read the actual petition (http://us.share.geocities.com/nospamcarl/sirius_
First, much of the petition deals with RF lighting and UWB. I'm new to RF lighting, but I remember the last UWB thread on
Has anyone done interference testing with 2.4GHz devices and RF lighting? Would RF streetlamps disable Bluetooth and 802.11b freenets?
Secondly, Sirius isn't asking the FCC to ban 802.11b. They're asking the FCC to make WiFi manufacturers put stronger filters on their transmitters. Quoting from the petition:
Obviously, the wireless industry disagrees. But they also claim this would force them to retrofit existing devices, which simply isn't in Sirius' petition at all. The actual proposed rule change is on pg. 26:
So the real questions seem to be: 1) how hard would it be for 802.11b makers to follow that proposed rule change, and 2) Would this mean the end of RF lighting and UWB?
One company has more clout with the FCC then MILLIONS of users and HUNDREDS or maybe thousands of other companies? I thought that's what you said.... Why does this not surprise me? In the public interest? Don't make me laugh!
The argument that neighborhood LANs necessarily freeload on ISP's bandwidth is FUD. 802.11b can supply the last mile while ISP's can charge for access to a proxy server or gateway. From a free market standpoint, this situation would be desirable because many isp's would be able to offer competing gateways and proxies, with different prices and packages. Since 802.11b takes care of the last mile, you can mix and match nntp server, smtp server, etc.
55MHz is a pretty large difference. FM Radio stations are 2MHz apart, do they interfere? No. 800MHz cell phones and 900MHz cordless phones are less than 55MHz apart, do they interfere? No. Countless other services aren't that far apart. Most of the Maryland state police frequencies are _less_ than 1MHz apart, being 39.xx. FM Radio has a pretty far difference between stations, relatively speaking. On a scanner it is usually accurate to .0005MHz, depending on the band. My signal generator for my electronics lab is accurate to 0.000000001MHz, from 10KHz to 1.2GHz, and it's an older one. Although it is temperature stabilized, and is much more precise than a reasonably priced radio would be, even the cheapest radios are accurate to less than 1MHz.
There are 2 possible reasons why this company is worried about this.
a) Their equipment really IS that crappy. Maybe they hired the worst engineer in the world or something. It would STILL be hard to see why the receivers wouldn't be able to differentiate between at least 1MHz offsets! Furthermore, 802.11 stuff isn't junk. Its not the best technology, but it doesn't exactly cause interference 55MHz down. If this company can't make radios that are good, then their service won't work, and CAN'T work. Microwave ovens use 2.4GHz. Radar uses 2.4GHz. Cell Phones use 2.4GHz. Radar(Marine atleast) trasmits on powers as high as 25000W. A lot of microwave ovens leak more power than an 802.11 device transmits. If their devices are affected by the 802.11 frequencies, they have no possible market since they will be interfered by an endless number of other devices.
b)The company may be clueless about RF, and doesn't know what they're doing. ex: "There are other transmitters using the same band(gasp!). That could cause interference!!!".
Secondly, does anyone know what effect this would have on amateur radio operators on 2.4GHz? I'm not one, but am wondering since that freqs listed as a ham band. Is this law specific to 802.11 or does it affect the whole band? People have also probably invested more than 3 billion in _current_ 2.4GHz devices.... If this company was stupid enough to invest 3 billion in a satellite network that can be affected by devices 55MHz away, then thats their problem.
...whether or not the 802.11 devices are radiating out of their specified allotment. Realize that they're 55MHz away from the XM Radio allotment.
There's pretty much no way that a properly engineered device that meets requirements would be transmitting in a manner objectionable to a device properly designed reciever with that much bandgap.
----------
To put this in perspective:
An NTSC signal requires 6MHz of signal bandwidth per channel.
The XM allocation is a solid nine NTSC channels worth of bandwidth separated.
Most NTSC televisions can cope with having adjacent channels, etc. with minimal problems- this is with a lot less seperation than we see with the 802.11 stuff.
----------
Why can't Sirius do the same thing with something that is supposed to be more tolerant of noise conditions. It should be much narrower in bandwidth and guardband with the compression, etc.
The FCC, if they're on the ball, are going to ask Sirius why their stuff is so sloppy...
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Has Sirius thought this out. They state that part 15 devices would harm the ability of people in rural areas from getting the programming offered by digital satilite radio. I guess they think that Red Neckville is going to go nuts deploying 2.4GHz equipment.
I find their claim that the agregate sum of all part 15 use in the 2.4Ghz band is causing them interference a bit hard to understand. It's not like the cars are transmitting up to the satellite and the satellite needs to hear them. Their receivers have a problem rejecting adjacent channel interference. When you want to tune a signal from the satellite at -115dBM with an omnidirectional antenna, they get noise from everything in the area and have a bit of trouble rejecting signals that are in the -30 dBM region inside the same car (or most likely truck), or signals eminating from nearby buildings at -60 dBm? Here is some more background to consider... Sirius has the lower frequency band at 2320.0 to 2332.5 Ghz (at least 67.5 Mhz away where signals are way down in the noise according to my spectrum analyzer) and XM has the higher frequency licences at 2.3325 to 2.3450 Ghz which are much closer to the 2.4 Ghz band (only 50 Mhz away). Why is XM not complaining??? Ahhh they paid millions for their licenses and perhaps their receivers are wide as a barnyard door ...and their protocol is suceptible to interference? (more than XM?) Perhaps they were so late in the market with XM radio already selling and they can't afford to redesign their radios. And the radios with a better front-end would put their product at a disadvantage with XM?
I think Sirius is serious financial do-do. Sirius Radio service will be available nationwide by the third-quarter of 2002. (9 months later than XM) Until then, it's a ground-based operation. Furthermore, they have had trouble getting Ford and Chrisler on board. Both will offer the radios in '03. (XM has GM as a partner and is selling now) Sirius Radio reported a net loss of $57 million for third quarter '01. Losses are Sirius Radio has also publicly announced that they have enough cash to last until the fourth-quarter of 2002. Their insiders are selling their shares.
I get it -- call in the lawyers and eliminate all part 15. Yeah that's the ticket.
Konrad Roeder
Consulting Systems Engineer
http://www.springswireless.com
Sirius's whole story is starting to sound like Global Crossing. Their previous CEO David Margolese bailed from the project last year and probably collected a small fortune to keep his mouth shut.