Slashdot Mirror
FCC Rule Cuts Bandwidth For 72-Mile 802.11b
sonamchauhan writes "This Computerworld article reported a 72-mile 802.11b wireless link (discussed in
this Slashdot story). Now a Computerworld followup story is reporting the link power has been reduced by 75% to comply with FCC regulations for the 2.4-GHz band -- reducing the link's throughput from 1 Mbps to 300 Kbps. The owner is reported saying that: "any violation of the power limits was unintentional and resulted from the fact that the personnel working [on it] primarily have expertise in computers and not radio technology.""
I can't write a comment, I'm leaving for CompUSA to buy all remaining 802.11b transmitters + receivers!
When the terrorists destroy your pie in the sky, you will be GLAD you kept your 56k winmodem in the attic!
So set up two more of them, and multiplex. Bingo! 1MBit.
FCC regulations exist for a reason, folks.
Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
you need to do your high power experiments out in the desert.
That's still excellent throughput for a wireless connection at that distance.
Bummer. The first article had the cost for a fixed line as being 3000, but the follow up states the cost of the replacement was also about 3000.
Its pretty easy to go over the maximum power output, which I believe is two watts. Assuming certain combinations of high-gain antennae and an amplifiers, there is no helping blowing past the FCC regs.
To find out if you are over, you need to calculate to total db of gain you have, and convert that to watts.
geogeek
Ok, so one link of 1 Watt gives a speed of 1Mbps, but is illegal. Could they make three links of 250 milliWatts, which would give a bandwidth of 900Kbps, but stay legal?
Of course, it could be very well possible that 300Kpbs is enough for this situation.
Teenagers these days don't have as much sex as they want each other to think they do.
To all the people that flamed me in the previous story for pointing out they were likely violating FCC regs, bite me.
People just couldn't fathom that college professors might not know what they are doing. Credentialism at it's worst.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Everytime there's a story about 802.11b I wind up posting this link which provides a lucid explanation of the FCC rules in order to correct wrong information.
For that type of data, I would imagine that the reduced bandwidth will be just fine.
Sex - Find It
These guys manage to create a 72-mile wireless link, truly an impressive feat, and do it with mostly computer guys? I'm not exactly certain, but it seems to me like they would have contacted a radio engineer at some point during the construction to assist them. Continuing with this hypothesis, shouldn't the radio engineer know the FCC guidelines and at least mention them so they wouldn't have to adjust the power?
You zap the moderators with a wand of humor! The moderators resist!
My 56k modem was stolen by gypsies.
(without reading the article of course}
I ask a simple wuestion of the slashdot brain trust(tm)-
Why?
Why is building your own transmitter ilegal?
Who decided that any government "owns" the radio spectrum?
Who gives this organization such power to control the "airwaves"?
Bah.
comment directly in my journal
All he's saying is that they aren't arbitrary. It's not like they're drawing frequencies out of a hat at the FCC office.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
This isn't really related to 802.11, but while we're on the topic of FCC, I heard that DSL is limited to 1.5 Mb/s in the USA. Is this true? I'm in New Zealand and I'm currently connected at a little over 4.4 Mb/s, with a theoretical maximum of 8. If what I heard is true, I wonder what the reason is? Sorry about the OT, I've been wondering about this for a while and saw this as a chance to jump in and ask :)
300Kbps free transmission for 72 miles is fine in my book.
cat
This could be the thing I have been looking for. I'm trying to bridge a 12KM gap here.
J.
What... do you want a cookie or something? You were right when the majority on Slashdot was wrong. Big deal. It happens all the time.
If you don't regulate it, people go nuts. People decide they need to broadcast at 25,000 watts from their garage. Frequencies get jammed up so bad that nobody can talk. Nobody wants that, so we have a government agency to keep it under control.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
Building your own transmitter is perfectly legal, and kinda fun. However, turning it on and broadcasting above the LPFM limits is illegal because you're interfering with someone else's transmission.
The reason these rules exist (at least theoretically) are to prevent any and every organization from building hundred-thousand watt transmitters (or more!) and broadcasting their message willy-nilly... such as the KKK, NAMBLA, the RIAA, Coca-cola, etc. In order to get a license to broadcast, broadcasters must show signifigant community need, they have to have a local point-of-presence for the public to come in to see them, they must maintain public records, they must broadcast community interest messages (ads for local businesses, PSAs, etc.)
These rules have been enforced a little bit loosely lately, but that's starting to step up - the FCCs enforcement budget was drastically increased this past year.
Stop and consider what would happen, though, if the FCC didn't exist - companies would start broadcasting their advertisements non-stop, and if a competitor tries to broadcast theirs, the first one simply brings up the power on his transmitter and jams the other one out. Pirates (who, of course would not be pirates if there was no FCC) wouldn't have a chance, as there would be so much radio being broadcast that there wouldn't be anywhere they could find to put in a low power transmitter (and before you think about a high power one, keep in mind how expensive they are). After a short time of this, people would stop listening to the radio, stop watching TV, etc. There would be no reason to do so, as there would be nothing of entertainment or educational value. Radio and television would then die out.
In essence, your question is very much the same as saying "why is carrying a gun around illegal? Who decided that any government could make laws telling me I can't carry a gun? Who gives them such power to enforce 'laws'?" The reason why is that it would be disruptive to society otherwise - that's why the FCC is there.
We may not like 'em, but they're much better than the alternative.
-T
The FCC doesn't pass regulations for no good reason. , so as long as folks use after-market antennas and no one files any complaints, the FCC isn't looking to imply cut back on allowable bandwidth. Wide bandwidth spectrum can be used by many users for diffeent reasons. For example, in urban areas, some of the users may be hospitals utilizing heart monitors.
The government doesn't "own" the radio spectrum; it regulates it.
In theory, the government's power to control the "airwaves" was granted by the people, by way of their elected representatives--you and me, that is (or in this case, our parents and grandparents). In practice, of course, giving and taking power from the government is much more complicated and frustrating.
The reasons for having a regulatory body for the radio spectrum should be obvious. The best reason I can think of offhand is airplanes. Airplanes rely heavily on communication via radio waves for safe and accurate travel. If there is no regulation (which might be though of as standards + enforcement), then no airplane can know with any certainty any of the important information:
What band to use to communicate with air traffic control?
What band to use to communicate with guidance beacons?
What band to use to communicate in an emergency?
Assuming you've got a good idea of which band to use, how can you guarantee that any of these bands will be available?
Will the guidance beacon band be overridden by a nearby private transmitter?
Will pranksters or malefactors transmit false traffic control instructions over the air traffic control band?
Will high-powered transmissions from nearby (unregulated) transmitters inadvertently disrupt the plane's avionics during takeoff or landing?
Without standards that everybody agrees on, and without proper enforcement of these standards, air travel would involve crashing planes into buildings on a regular basis. And that's just one of the many reasons why regulation is a good thing.
Transmittors who think that regulation is an "opt-in" thing, and that they're somehow entitled to ignore it if they want to, ruin it for everybody else. Every use of the radio spectrum that you enjoy in your daily life is made possible by regulation. It's why your cellphone doesn't pick up Mexican radio stations. It's why your radio-dispatched taxi arrives on time to pick you up. It's why your satellite TV gives you a clear image, without static from nearby 802.11b nodes.
Nobody "owns" the radio spectrum, but we all use it. Regulation helps make sure that it remains useful. You and I probably agree that the regulations aren't always beneficial to citizens, but ignoring them won't make things any better for anyone.
If none of this is obvious to you, then how can we possibly trust you to voluntarily play nice with others? And if we can't trust you to play nice, then we're left with two options: abandon any hope of ever using the radio spectrum for anything at all, or else enforce the standards and keep the spoilers out of the spectrum.
Which option would you vote for?
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
And I gotta get down to 7-11 before they outlaw pringles cans!
The owner is reported saying that: "any violation of the power limits was unintentional and resulted from the fact that the personnel working [on it] primarily have expertise in computers and not radio technology." That says it all. A bunch of computer people playing with RF; no knowledge of Part 15 rules, no concept of RF. Really, if the FCC is going to assign new frequencies for wireless networking, we owe it to ourselves to become acquainted with the technology and the rules thereof. The last thing that anyone needs is to turn 802.11 into another RF wasteland like CB radio.
Wouldn't it be nice if I could pick up a simple kit that would get me a 2 to 5 mile radius around my base station. One that didn't require me to hold a directional antenna and GPS to properly aim it.
Maybe setting up N*(directional antennas) with 360/N degrees coverage would be better?
Or put a passive "repeater" WPOP into every car. Put an omnidirectional antenna on the roof and we could have WPOPs all over the interstate.
I would run one if it let me surf in traffic. And believe me, there will always be traffic jams. Bounce your signal through a few cars till you get to someone's excess bandwidth landline based system.
Heck, the phone company could put a base station at every rest stop with a payphone. Just pull into the parkinglot to get better bandwidth.
If you make every box also have a caching proxy (squid) and a large harddisk (IBM 150Gb =200$) you would be able to do what AOL did to save bandwith costs. CACHE EVERYTHING
Of course you would have to encrypt all outgoung data and use SSL on sites that matter.
Made in the shade. Partners? Anyone?
comment directly in my journal
Directional, non-directional, I don't care too much. I want to be the guy with the portable EM Pulse generator. You like EM? I'll give you EM.
People seem to take pride in saying things like, "I'm useless without my cell phone and PDA!"
And you're pretty useless with it, too, actually. Stick a joker like that in a forest with a knife, two matches and a fishhook and see how long he'd last. Pathetic, or at least the precursor to something terribly Darwinian in scope. .
-Fantastic Lad "--Look Ma! 5000 fried cell phones and their owners wandering around like so many headless chickens!" "Stop teasing the sheeple, junior."
And I gotta get down to 7-11 before they outlaw pringles cans!
Pringles can antennas are already illegal. They are unapproved by the FCC. I still can't believe that the FCC is unwilling to free up some space in the spectrum. If they could make just one 1-gigahertz wide band in the 10-50 ghz range unlicensed, that would really expand the opportunities for wifi. (That frequency would make it hard to transmit between rooms in houses. The 2.4 ghz is better for that. But it would have no problem going a mile or two over the air with enough power, provided there isn't any fog or anything.)
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
The FCC can buy bite me.
The problem is that there is not just one group (the wifi fans) wanting such bandwidth, they have to split it up between many potential users.
Sadly the last years more and more bandwidth goes to the highest bidders taking it away from others that could use it for other interessting things.
Think radio astronomy and HAM users....
(OK I'm a bit biased as I am a HAM myself....)
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
It's about the speed I get with my cable modem. And *my* wireless--admittedly using a cheapo home deal--starts choking when I go to the other end of the next room. :)
Radiated field works by the square of the EIRP.That is, to double the field, you need to 4X the power. Therefore, reducing the power to 1/4 of what it was exactly halves the field (-6db). They probably could make this up with a good, low noise (GaS FET) receive preamp. The worst thing it does is reduce their fade margin by 6 db as well. By the way, I know of many companies that routinely get 50-100 mile shots using the 5 gig unlicensed band and 10 foot dishes.
DSL is limited in the United States due to concerns that the signal will bleed over in legacy telco equipment, thereby rendering many older phone systems obsolete. The baby bells wanted to push this regulatory measure through to enable her to make all equipment, even older Phone systems, work with the extra measure of having DSL on the line.
:) (Two DSL lines channel bonded together through a netopia router)
Keep in mind that most DSL equipment actually operates several thousand hertz higher than what you can physically hear.
It is quite all right though, as I worked for a DSL acompany, I got to test equipment. Imagine pure internet joy at 3 MB up and down with a class C of Public IP's
Blah Blah Blah.
This is quoted from the compworld article:
Computerworld received numerous e-mail complaints that HPWREN was in violation of FCC power limits following publication of its original story. Steve Bragg, a senior electronics engineer at Internet Telemetry Corp. in Tulsa, Okla., called the HPWREN San Clemente Island link illegal, saying, "If I was the FCC, I would bust these guys."
Now my question is, why do people always have to get jelaous of other's achivements? Just live your life, leave others to do as they please if they dont bother you !!! To reach such a distance this link had to be highly directional with minimized dispersion, so the extra power was not at all likely to impact anyone else. Just because you didn't think of it first, and didn't do it first doesnt mean you go out saying, those guys should be busted!.
regulating what frequencies can be used for what purpose makes sense, and should be observed. yet there is also a very good argument for public domain use of this resource, since it belongs to everyone. anyone can build an use a transmitter. there are various permits to allow for these things, and are perfectly legal if you stay within the proper bandwidth and power guidlines. the limit on wireless network cards is a different story. i see several possibilities here, one of which realy scares the fcc and the govt. there is probably a limit on the product that states transmission can only be done on premisis. this is not really there to protect the available radio spectrum. whatever bandwidth given to these devices is not terribly important, or it wouldnt have been available in the first place. what i think really scares the govt is a giant, wireless network, on the scale of the internet. if it reached that point it would be almost impossible to regulate in any way. there would be no ip address to track, no physical doors to knock on anymore, just one huge mass of information floating in the air. and forget triangulating an offenders position, with that many transmitters out there it would not be easy. the idea of truly private communication for the masses has terrified the US government for decades. they have spent billions monitoring faxes, emails, telephones, and even encryption over the the years, searching for "keywords". it is hard to say if this is done for crime prevention and peacekeeping, or to preserve power. i dont share that sense of paranioa. i think it is time for another internet experiment. there should be a new band given up to the public domain just for wireless networking. but instead of licensing it to companies who pay them money, the fcc should give it to the individual. anyone would be able to brodcast anything they wanted from their pc. the only constraints would be that it is digital, conforms to existing regulations about slander, hate, porn etc..., and that transmitting power would be limited depending on population density. would something like this break the hold large companies have on high speed internet atm? would it evolve in a civilized manner? or would the lack of regulations bring out the worst in ppl and create anarchy, like the citizens band, which is the internet equivalent for hill billies. i think these are moot questions because the government would never allow this to happen. they seem to be of the opinion that if they lose control, they will be automatically overthrown. the government must have a very guilty conscience to fear its own citizens so much.
A name you can trust.
Check out Motorola's Canopy system.
so now, you could be 72 miles from you provider and still get a 300kbps link, wonder how many providers are watching this.
Where do you want to be, What are you doing to get there.
In the US, the 2.390-2.450 allocation belongs to radio amateurs, who are using at least some of it to receive to weak signals from the AO-40 amateur radio satellite. Owners of unlicenced (Part 15) devices are requred to cease operation immediately if they are causing interference to licenced users, even if their equipment is unmodified, within power limits and type-accepted.
Signals at this frequency are highly directional, and if you interefere with an amatuer satellite operator, you can expect to hear from them. They know who to talk to at FCC about enforcement, too.
-=Maggie Leber=-
70 some-odd mile internet range? That would cut out a lot of potential profit from a market for some companies...
What we see depends on mainly what we look for. -- John Lubbock Now search for that bug slave!
"a 72-mile 802.11b wireless link... the link power has been reduced by 75% to comply with FCC regulations for the 2.4-GHz band..."the personnel working [on it] primarily have expertise in computers and not radio technology.""
So how much power were they putting out in the 2.4 GHz band again? Could they pop microwave popcorn? Will they ever be able to have children?
I used to work for an ISP that was over-amplifying their 802.11b signal as a matter of course. We regularly got a usable range of 10 miles. Breaking the rules is the ONLY way to get wireless stuff to work over any kind of real distance. There's so much interference on those frequencies, that being the most powerful signal is the only way to make it work. Of course, that means you screw everybody else up, until they amplify the shit out of their signal, too. Which means you have to amplify your signal even more....rinse, repeat. The FCC screwed up on the 2.4GHz licensing. Free-to-all means "doesn't work right for anybody".
If you get an FCC license for your fixed microwave link, which isn't a big deal in most areas, your link goes in the FCC database, and you're protected from interference from future links.
All you need is a ham radio license and to reclassify this gear as part 97. You can then have up to 100W into the antenna and ERP much higher. Check this link: http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/Ham_Et hernet_GBPPR.pdf to find out more. If this is just expermintation and has nothing to do with business then this would be what they need.
(make sure you check out the section of power limits in that above link, 100W at 2.4Ghz into 24dBi dish = 25118.8 W EIRP and still perfectly legal. The FCC makes the rules but luckily they make it easy to do what these people want to do, again if its not business related that is.
-Tom
That's why we have licensing for radio operators: people are supposed to demonstrate a minimum amount of knowledge before they go around hacking radio transmitters.
The real problem is that the law doesn't require licenses for modifications to radio equipment in many cases, and that when they do, people don't know about it and it doesn't get enforced anyway.
For 802.11b and other uses of the "unlicensed" 2.4G and 5G bands, the rules should really prohibit the kinds of modifications to antennas that people are making--operation of those devices by unlicensed operators should only be permitted with the original antennas, and they should be subject to FCC review. Otherwise, we are inviting abuses: if someone aims one of those things at your house, your own equipment may stop working and you won't even be able to figure out why.
I think the rules should also prohibit the use of unlicensed spectrum by B2B or B2C services; extensive use of 802.11b by for-pay ISPs and voice providers may well render the bands useless for their originally intended purpose. Companies wanting to derive a profit by providing services should pay for their own bandwidth.
640 kilobytes should be enough for any-oh nevermind...
Yes, you were right but if the signal was separated into TX and RX. then a high antannae could legitimately be used for reception and a conventional antannae for transmission. The end result would still be a directional link, with longer than normal range.
Over the hill -1
Delivering Sermons -1
Can you tell me why I sould compare amplitude modulated voice comunications on a single frequency, technology much like Marconi used 100 years ago, to freqency hopping, digital communications? Asside from the use that people get out of CB and the usless FCC restrictions, these two unlicensed freqency specturms have little in common. What do you get out of FCC regulations? All I get is really bad broadcast TV and radio.
Have some juice and cookies, it will make you feel better when people disagree with you. It's not a flame, it's a different point of view.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
What legacy telco equipment operates at what frequencies that would make it susceptible to interference from DSL? Isn't DSL basically a hypersonic electrical signal running over the "last mile" wiring between the subscriber and the central office and then patched around the central office's dialing switches back over last mile wiring to the ISP? Since the only other signal on last mile wiring is at voice frequencies, and stuff attached to that last mile wiring usually has low pass filters, how would DSL cause interference?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Subject: Linux box finds it hard to wake up in the morning
I've heard of dogs being like their owners, but Linux boxen?
-- Peter Hunter
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...