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.""
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.
Why is building your own transmitter ilegal?
It's not. Operating it in certain ways is illegal though.
Who decided that any government "owns" the radio spectrum?
The people own the radio spectrum, the government is "the people". At least in theory.
Who gives this organization such power to control the "airwaves"?
Consent of the people.
If anyone could transmit at any power anywhere on the spectrum, no one would be able to use any non-microwave frequency. One guy with one poorly designed transmitter can easily obliterate several frequencies at once, rendering them all unusable, on a nearly worldwide scale.
I suggest you listen in on CB frequencies for a while at night to see what sort of thing lack of regulation would bring to the spectrum as a whole.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
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.