Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Lighting Technology To Wipe Out Wi-Fi Access?

Posted by Hemos on from the extinction-level dept.

Richard Evans writes "Focus on Broadband Wireless Internet Access has an article [cached by google ] on the potentially catastrophic interference to Communications Users Of The 2.4 GHz Band e.g. Wi-Fi, DECT and Bluetooth by a new lighting technology called RF Lighting."

9 of 321 comments (clear)

  1. I wonder.... by TuxLuvr · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...How this will impact the use of fluorescent lighting as a data carrier. Remember This story?

  2. Repeater stations by Keighvin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why not make these play nice and use the lights as repeater stations? Install a recepter on each one, wire'em up to the LAN and have even more ubiquitous access.

    --
    Any spoon would be too big.
  3. Industry's fault, I suppose by rnelsonee · · Score: 2, Insightful
    So basically, Wi-Fi was developed to take part in a area of the spectrum that's licensed to other products. The people who started it knew that this was a potential problem. Granted, this area was a relatively large chunk of the spectrum, but why didn't they realize the possible impact of this interference? It's is much more dangerous to digital communications that other products. Was there really no other place in the spectrum to go? Perhaps find one that the FCC can give exclusive rights to?

    From the article...


    (1) [Each Part 15] device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) [Each Part 15] device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesirable operation.

  4. and also... by Schlemphfer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let's see an electric use cost comparison between this RF lighting and fluorescents. It's pretty slipshod that the article didn't bother to address the question of whether this lighting offers significant savings.

    Until it's clear that there are compelling cost advantages associated with microwave lighting, the issue of whether this technology could endanger communications doesn't merit discussion.

    --
    I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
  5. Squatters by southpolesammy · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If you lease an apartment and you find squatters living there, do you (a) ask them nicely to leave since that's your space now, or (b) call your landlord to have the police throw the freeloaders out?

    This is no different. Fusion Lighting is playing by the FCC rules, while all the Bluetooth, Wi-fi, and cordless phone manufacturers were getting away with squatting on a frequency that they knew could be a problem down the line, but that no one was using yet. Now that someone has a legitimate claim to the frequency, they're crying foul? BS...you have no basis for that frequency in the first place. Move to the 5GHz band, establish a right to that band, and fsck off on the 2.4GHz band. I do feel sorry for the people who have already invested in devices running on that band, but you need to do your homework folks.

    Ignorance is no excuse.

    --
    Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
  6. Something is missing by Spazmania · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The article is rather light on details about how exactly the lights are going to interfere.

    2.4ghz is special in that its the resonance frequency of the water molecule. That's why microwave ovens operate at that frequency: vibration = heat.

    So how exactly are these folks going to sell a product which emits high wattages at that frequency? Sitting under one would be like sticking your head in a microwave.

    Answer: They're not stupid enough to sell a product that is like sticking your head in a microwave. Some critical facts are missing here.

    The wireless stuff isn't particularly dangerous since its emitting at such a low power: well under 1 watt where the typical microwave emits at up to 1000 watts. And the spread spectrum technology does a good enough job of ignoring noise that the technology works despite the leakage from those ovens. If the wireless stuff does OK in the presence of leakage from 1000 watt Microwave Ovens, it'll do fine in the presence of other safe 2.4ghz devices.

    --
    Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
  7. RF light needs to coexist in order to sell by Roached · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One thing that strikes me about all of this is that places that install high efficiency lighting are probably companies of various kinds. These same places will generally also purchase things like wireless networks (802.11b is all over the place now from gas stations to big companies). If a company finds that their new lighting system will disrupt day to day business, I doubt they'll invest and this will be bad news for Fusion Lighting since 802.11b was there first.

  8. Re:You agreed to this when you bought your equipme by grahammm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So maybe there should be some lobbying of delegates to the next international frequency allocation conference, which I think is next year, to get a recognised allocation for "portable data communications equipment".

  9. Evidence? by dmiller · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't see any evidence of why this would be so catastrophic. I can't imagine why a lighting system would be using anything but a narrowband transmission, whereas all the communication technologies use spread-spectrum techniques to avoid exactly this type of narrowband interference.

    Secondly, the RF lighting seems to be targetted at industrial applications (e.g. lighting warehouses and factory floors) without the need to run cables - *exactly* the same market for RF comms technologies and for exactly the same reasons. The RF lighting people are the new entrant, so if *they* don't interoperate then they'll be the one seeking chapter 11 :)