Slashdot Mirror
Pentagon and Wi-Fi Deal Reached
byteCoder writes "CNet reports that the US Military and the Wi-Fi manufacturers have struck an agreement on reducing the interference on military radars by Wi-Fi equipment. Basically, future wireless equipment will detect the presence of military radar and not transmit over the top of it. Additionally, as part of the compromise, defense officials will endorse the doubling of the number of allowed wireless frequencies--thus opening more spectrum to wireless users (as long as the FCC and Congress agree)."
Will WiFi equipment be able to tell the difference between military radar, police department radar, and other forms of non-WiFi radiation in the relevant frequency ranges? Will WiFi stop working if I wardrive near a police car? Will it stop working if a police car drives by my house?
Does this "agreement" allow anyone who wants to suppress the use of WiFi to turn on a device that simulates 'military radar"?
Just wondering.
.
If it isn't true, don't say it. If it isn't helpful, don't say it. If it's true and helpful, wait for the right time.
Saddam: "I wonder how close those Americans are... I know, break out the access points!"
A chapter in Lawrence Lessig's latest book, The Future of Ideas, covers the topic of spectrum as a controlled commons. Many feel with modern technology it should be de-regulated and simply sold to any of the highest bidders. Interference with military transmissions has been one key arguing point. His book discusses it well and raises the argument for easing government control of the spectrum commons. I highly recommend the book for anyone interesting in the ideas of the internet as a commons and how it should or should not be controlled.
Developers: We can use your help.
If people can easily modifiy consumer equipment to detect these radar signature, than no foreign nation is going to have trouble building someing that does exactly the same thing. In fact most nations already do build devices like this, especially on fighter planes. Most of them are much more sophisticated, featuring much better sensitivity than consumer equipment along with direction finding ability (there are even missiles that seek on RADAR emissions).
Personally, I'm estatic over the prospect of expanding the total number of completely independent channels from three to five or six.
I read the internet for the articles.
the military getting into consumer products, seems bad in general
/. if it weren't for a military research project.
WHAT? Do you live in a cave?
TONS of consumer technology has its roots in military-developed technology. You wouldn't be able to waste your time on
Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
Last time i checked, police departments should not be broadcasting in the military spectrum.. second, houses don't tend to speed, so there's no reason why the police should beam their radar guns at your house. Third, even if they did, it wouldn't do anything.
Information on police radar guns: "The granddaddy of systems is X band radar... X band operates on the narrow channel from 10.500 to 10.550 gigahertz (GHz)... K band appeared in the seventies and quickly became popular in its deadliest form: a hand held gun featuring an instant on switch. K band operates on a higher-frequency channel from 24.050 to 24.250 GHz... In 1989, photo radar appeared on the scene, and it was bad news for motorists--it operated on a frequency that was undetectable by existing radar detectors. The FCC set up a channel for photo-radar from 34.200 to 34.400 GHz, which lies within the wide Ka band... Which brings us to the Stalker, the latest wrinkle in hand-held radar guns. It operates on the Ka band anywhere from 34.200 to 35.200 GHz."
Here is another informative article on how the Wi-Fi is colliding with the millitary radar, down at 5 GHz side of the spectrum, specifically 5.150-5.350 GHz.
Thus, police radar should never affect Wi-Fi, and vice versa.
"Isn't that a little dangerous for military secrecy?" ---Bendebecker---
Nope, the ability and technology to detect radar has been around for along time, decades. The most comon example of this technology in found military aircraft where it is used to determine whether or not the aircraft is being tracked by radar. Most governments have this capability but the biggest tactical factor just depends on the level of their technology.
For example Iraqi ground mobile anti-aircraft missiles facilities are usually not able to aquire radar target on a U.S. F-15 and shoot it down before the U.S. F-15 can detect the source of the radar transmission and blow it up. This is not always the case as the Iraqi's have been desperately trying to aquire new technologies which sometimes allows them to get off a lucky shot. It all depends on the level of their technology.
"Help me Obi-/.-Kenobi,your my only hope!" -$
Which electronic magazine (or Phrack ?) will be the first to publish "Build your own WiFi scrambler/silencer for under 20 bucks" article.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
All of the above is supposition on the submitter's part, and NONE of it is referenced in teh article. First of all, the article says >
Nothing about 'detecting' military radar, and nothing about shutting down transmission when it does. Next up we have Pentagon endorsement of the Boxer/Allen Broaband Jumpstart Act which will open up an add'l 255MHz in the 5GHz band. Well, the article doesn't say anything about that either - all we've got is this quote:
Which is from One of the bill's sponsors (Boxer) - not the DOD!
Oh, and just in case you were wondering - None of this applies to existing 2.4GHz wireless gear...
Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?