Slashdot Mirror
Regulatory Fees on the 802.11 Broadcast Spectrum?
Demerara asks: "I live in the Caribbean where I am putting together a business plan for a WISP on St. Lucia. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that the St. Lucian National Telecomms Regulatory Commission here licenses and charges fees for 2.4Ghz spread spectrum applications. It's nearly US$400 to apply and, get this, nearly US$800 per link, per *year*. This blows the economics of a WISP out of the water. I may be reading the laws and regulations wrong but I don't think so. For example - they even charge an application fee and an annual license for the 'Family Band' walkie-talkies - look in the fees PDF. I am attempting to find out the following: what international agreements govern spectrum management; what international agreements govern licensing of WiFi or 802.11;
and finally, are there any Slashdot readers out there who live in countries where 802.11 technology is also licensed or heavily regulated? The ITU website doesn't seem to answer these questions or, to be fair, I cannot come up with the keywords to find the answers. I'd love to hear from others who use or operate 802.11 under less than 'free' regulatory regimes."
Do the French still restrict 802.11 usage?
But what would "international agreements" have to do with local laws in the country you want to do business?
I have been pwned because my
When ever they see even a way of squeezing a buck out of whatever you do, they'll go for it. This has the effect of driving business from even visiting the place in the first place.
Well, one of the benefit of sovereignity is the ability to print your own money, hope someone else is dumb enough to actually take it.
especially in small countries, is that the government can and do control everything. They can regulate spectrum how they want, and USE how they want.
.. etc....
Some places even say "You can't use 2.4Ghz for internet" or "providing internet in any way is forbidden unless you are the national ISP"
So you might be screwed.
The upside, is you can bribe.
Yes in Australia theres a connection of broadcasters called Sydney Wireless who all have their own hardware and are communicating and leeching for free on their own little intranet. I heard that some authorities have taken notice and are getting ready to kill the operation... :(
Doesn't 802.11a operate at a different frequency (5.5ghz)?
You're going to give the United States Congress too many ideas. Or worse, California... :)
And thanks heaps to Cliff for posting this where politicians might see it!
I had a sucky sig.
"I live in the Caribbean..."
;)
I thought you were all very chilled out over there, like whats $800 between mates eh?
Get as many investors as you can. Buy up as much bandwidth as you can. Resell that bandwidth to desperate major corporations who want to use it for their products.
You'll make a killing.
Well...you are about 25 miles south of Martinique. What are their laws? You could just boost the power and point your antennas due south a la Wolfman Jack... (during the 60s, he broadcast his radio show at "4 times the legal limit" from 4 towers just south of the Mexican border, pointed due north.)
-Daniel
Ownyourphone.com. Custom ringtones, cheap and easy
The submitter mentions that they charge for FRS radios. Who are they charging? If someone purchases two radios for $40 do they then have to pay $1200 to actually use them? What about 2.4ghz phones and video transmitters? Does this only apply to businesses?
If the spectrum used by 802.11b gets flooded by ISPs, cell phone companies, and other commercial users, it will become useless for its primary purpose: networking and communications within an organization or home.
If you make money by selling services using some chunk of spectrum, I think you should have to pay for that chunk of spectrum, or at the very least convince the government to give it to you for free.
There are few "international agreements" regarding the use of the EM spectrum, outside of not interfereing with each other. Each nation is free to regulate who can transmit and how they do it.
For example, certain 802.11b/g channels that can be used in the US cannot be used in Europe, and vice versa.
However, you may also want to look into the 900mhz band that 802.11b/g uses. In the US its unregulated, and may be for St. Lucia as well.
I wonder when we'll have to pay licensing fees for our microwaves, since you know, they do emit microwaves at some frequency
Consider yourself lucky that the government still owns and collects on 802.11 frequencies. In Trinidad, they sold those rights away to a private company which is even more vehement in putting obsticales in the way of using wifi. Public commons should not be privately owned, and this is more true in spectrum than anywhere else.
England, for instance, has a Television Fee, which I hear is enforced with vans that drive around and somehow detect if you are running an unlicenced set. In the US, we charge various fees [PDF] for amateur short-range broadcast licenses. So there's kind of a precedent. I don't see why 802.11, in which you are actually broadcasting, should be any different.
So I'm sure the US isn't far behind. Your 900mhz wireless phone and certain halogen lamps that often interfere with wireless devices should have their own fee as soon as the right politicians read this thread.
Oh wait, politicians don't read slashdot. Phew.
In Russia we have the same situation.
Our ministry of communications requires company that use 802.11b for commercial to pay 2000$ per year for liciencing. There are special licenses on telecommunicational services and commercial communications.
And in every case of 802.11b you can have problem with local state security or military...
If you DO have to pay for such a liscense, turn in a few governing officials for using these "waves"
I remember IBM made an interface not long ago that just attached to your modem port and used the same technology as a 900Mhz phone (pre 802.11b days). Who's to say what ANYONE at ANY given time is doing with their lines or those unrestricted airwaves?
I also recall that France had a problem with Apple's Airport when it first came out, and the last Airport Extreme firmware update addressed a lot issues specifically for France. So, you may want to see what the French object to as a place to start.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
Perhaps you need to "donate" some funds to the local regulator.
Kill the White Man
Although there are international treaties governing radio communications, those are mainly intended mainly to avoid interference. They don't govern how a government chooses to manage its licensing process. (Just as an example, contrast the US privately operated broadcast radio spectrum with the state operation of broadcasting in many countries.)
Particularly at the VHF/UHF/microwave frequencies that normally do not travel across national boundaries, even the international regulations become more limited and countries often opt out of the ITU (International Telecommunications Union) agreements as to specific frequency allocations.
The unlicensed "Part 15" operation in the US is a creature of the US radio regulations, and not any international requirement -- though many other countries recognize (or at least tolerate) 802.11b operation, they aren't *required* to.
I am attempting to find out the following: what international agreements govern spectrum management;...
Ummm, instead of trying to use strong-arm tactics to get what you want, why not just play nice and try to get the rules changed from within? You do live there. Even better if you're a citizen there.
i live in south africa, i am currently with a WISP, the wireless lincesses are, afaik, hard to obtain. My ISP has a repeater set up in one part of town, and on the other side they put another one but had to take it down because they were told it was illigal to have it up. Also they have been other attempts to have wifi up in south africa which have failed, namely megawan.
Cuervo Nation should totally regulate frequencies commonly used by satelites, and then sue those satellite radio dudes. I mean sure, they'd be in the clear so long as they never went to Cuervo Nation, but then I ask you, dudes, how would they have a good time? Would they be barred from Cuervo Nation for the rest of their lives? They'd have to submit to Cuervo's every demand.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Sorry, but there are no international agreements regarding unlicensed spectrum. Unlicensed use of the 2.4GHz band is a privilege, not a right, and is permitted only in the US and a few other countries. The FRS walkie-talkies are a purely US thing, and are illegal to use in most other countries. Hell, many countries confiscate them (and other unapproved RF equipment) at the border.
Slate had a travel diary by a GeekCorps guy in Mongolia- seems they have a similar policy. IMO, a lot of third world countries have fairly unimaginative beauracracies..
He says (and I quote) "what's going wrong with Mongolia's Internet policy. Here's an example: In most parts of the world, the 2.4 ghz portion of the radio spectrum is set aside for unlicensed use by low-power, short-range devices--like Wi-Fi (aka 802.11b) wireless Internet cards and cordless telephones--without government permission. The result has been an astounding explosion in the deployment of wireless Internet connections, from home networks to the T-Mobile hotspot at each of the 17 Starbucks on your block. In Mongolia, however, the regulatory authority has ruled that companies and users must obtain official licenses (and pay costly licensing fees) to use the 2.4 ghz range for any purpose. Even to set up a wireless home network requires government permission and the payment of fees. This policy can best be described as bonkers."
If you look deeper, you may discover that the govenment is protecting an [in-efficient] monopoly.
For instance, many countries disallow consumer VoIP usage (India, for instance, last time I checked). The reason is that their big, government controlled international phone carrier (BSNL) makes most of its profit from international calls. Government enterprises are protected by the government through a system of regulations, leading generally to higher prices and lower service all around.
Maybe the government is protecting a government ISP or wireless provider. Yes, it could be mobile phone protection; many government regulators don't notice a different between GSM, 3G and 802.11b/g.
To get around the licensing, you may can convince/bribe some government minister that you won't be competing with the protected enterprise. Otherwise, maybe you can take your case to the public and hope for a rules change. No matter what, changing protectionist regulations is a nightmare. Just ask Europe how easy it would be to get France to consider dropping the CAP and going for free-market food-production.
Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
Carribean countries (and probably a lot of development countries) tend to think about income in the short-term. They don't think about the industries they are strangling. It is also common (still!) for them to award complete monopolies on technologies in exchange for cash. Consider the sad state of the Barbadian telecoms "industry".
I would think that various countries in the Caribbean would want WiFi access as open and accessible as possible, just think of the tourism possibilities. What slashdotter wouldn't want to sit on the beach on a beautiful island while having WiFi access to keep up with the latest /.? I think the governments should make it easy for companies to install WiFi networks, and then market them for reasonable fees to tourists. That would really boost their economy!
there are quite a few laws governing any sort of braodcast, but there is no one to police it. and If you did get cought a US $50 would paysomeone off. I know this sounds bad but it's true. Most third world contries dont have the ifrastructure to manage stuff like this. So why do they make such laws to gouge anyone who tries to do something that woudl better the community.
But that's for personal use (either by private people or comercial entities). For use as an ISP, a licence is required. It isn't cheap, and only a few are available.
Regards,
lmfr
What your business doing represents a win-win scenario for the government of St. Lucia. Show the government how your business will make their jobs and lives easier and better. They may even become one of your better investors. I am sure you will be able to work a way around this regulatory snag, or have it deregulated.
Virtually noone actually applies for them, and I'm not aware of anyone getting nabbed for it..
YMMV, don't try this in places where you might end up in a dark hole for years for flaunting such regulations (luckily we're about 2-3 years away from that situation in the US, phew!)
I don't think there are any International Agreements. Just International Standards.
A lot of the "govern"ment in the country depends on
- what the existing infrastructure is like,
- what is the new technology going to compete with
- how much of the revenue projections of the existing players are still unrealized
- how much can the Telecom Committees be "influenced"
- etc. etc. etc.
In short, there are many domestic compulsions on which countries base their implementation of WiFi. It is illogical to look for logic in it, because most of the countries are pretty illogical to begin with. And laws in that country will anyday trump the international "agreements."I mean that in a good way.To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
Just get a job at McDonald's for a few years here in the states and then use your saving to simply *buy* the government of St. Lucia. Voila! Telecom deregulation.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Lets not forget that in other countries, the power limitation imposed in the US doesn't exist. And it's possible to use much more powerful wifi equipment that covers far greater areas. Sure, you can use a directed antenna here, but directed antenna + power boost is a lot more effective.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
You're proposing a business built on using the publics property - their radio frequencies. Why shouldn't they expect to get back return on their property?
In many countries operators are required to give back in return via community-interest programming, being requisitioned in times of emergency, providing other services. Different countries prefer a straight licensing fee: Pay to use the medium or get shut down. Most use some combination as does the USA.
However your asking on /. for an interpretation of St. Lucia law is absolutely ludicrous. Pay for competent local legal advice and don't go asking the geeks for what most of them know little about: International telecommunications law and specifically St. Lucia law.
Why does /. post these garbage questions every so often anyhow? Raise pageviews? It's gotta be obvious few if any of the readers here will have the requisite knowledge, hell half are probably unaware there is non-US law anywhere.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
The United States has treaties with Mexico and Canada that lay out a framework for coordination of radio and television licensing. You can't just hop across the border and build a 1 MW radio station on any frequency you like.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
It's just a matter of time before we ALL have to pay fees for wifi. Enjoy it while you can. :)
(adjusts tinfoil hat)
I'm pretty sure that the country can do whatever they want regarding "Air space" policy. A case in point is France where some of the WiFi spectrum is off limits due to it already being used by the military. Most countries have this gap in the ranges because it is not a very good transmition band due to it being the resonant frequency of water. So they usually just skip it and classify the next higher band for use. The only reason it is free is because no one wanted to buy it. Now people do so it is only logical some countries will begin charging for the use of that space. For logistical reasons they will charge the company that sells the devices and probably will not charge the end user.
Philip K. Dick's UBIK has things in it like this. Everything takes change. Even to get the front door open, because the protagonist is too poor to afford a 'prepaid' normal house. He almost got locked into his house because the door wouldn't open, and it sat there and argued with him about opening.
Maybe we DID take the blue pill. You wouldn't remember anyway.
Supposedly, you were supposed to notify the phone company that you were installing one of these devices. In fact, I think I even bought a Commodore 64 modem once that came labeled that I needed to notify the phone company. But I never did, and neither did anyone else.
Yeah, the government may well impose a fee of $400 for your 802.11B hookup. But the real question is, is this law being enforced, and are they even bothering to look for offenders? They'd have to look pretty hard too, considering the 802.11B connection I just installed at a friend's house barely reaches upstairs.
All in all, this strikes me as a law that is about as likely to be enforced as jaywalking; although I almost got a jaywalking ticket once but that's a whole other story.
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
Wi-fi does not share spectrum with cell phones.
Cell phones do not share spectrum with anyone else. They are fully licensed and coordinated.
Wi-fi in the 2.4GHz band shares spectrum with all sorts of other items, including wireless video transmitters, microwave ovens, and amateur radio operators. Any of the latter three can and do make the former item useless. Sharing of spectrum is a nice idea, but it has not been demonstrated to have "little loss of quality".
I hate to say it (and I'll probably be called a bigot for it), but starting in Mexico and moving South the answer is: Bribe the right official. Those regulations you're talking about exist in the first place because a competitor already did.
Put together a nice sales-speak contract with a made-up flat fee. Pay the fee to the government, and pay it again to the official who has to stamp it OK. Presto, you're in business.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Just bribe the local officials and get on with it. In a small place like that you should be up against an un-educated alderman equivalent for that stuff.
Quit whining about paying for wireless spectrum. After all, someone has to produce that spectrum. You can't just expect the government or private industry to make spectrum all day long and then give it away.
;-)
Spectrum is hard to make. I mean, look how long it took to perfect 2.4Ghz spectrum and produce enough to support WiFi. All those R&D costs have to be paid by someone! I'm not even counting the investment needed to build a spectrum manufacturing plant.
The US government is able to give it away for free only because of payments from WiFi manufacturers. The WiFi group shrewdly knew that the market would open wide if there was free 2.4Ghz radio spectrum.
Many of these countries own their own telephone company, in whole or with a partner. In some Caribbean states (I don't know about St. Lucia offhand), Cable & Wireless, a privatized formerly-British state-owned company, has the monopoly, and has its tentacles deep into the regulators.
So a WISP would be a competitor, and that's simply not allowed. All communications money must flow to the government or C&W (who pays off the right people). That used to be the system in the USA, and the RBOCs are trying to get it back, but wireless has too many friends here now. Unlicensed packet radios (802.11) are a relatively recent change in the USA. In other countries, the mere right to be an ISP is again a government franchise, and competition is Not Allowed. This helps them censor opposition thought, and keep the price high (again, for the sake of the monopolist).
Interference has nothing to do with it.
DSSS is designed to support lots of nodes. Even nodes on the same frequency. That's one of the reasons it's become so popular.
From what I know of the ITU operation:
1. ITU-R (the part of ITU concerned with radio communication - all frequencies included) issues RECOMMENDATIONS, that should be followed by member countries, but the member countries retain the sovereign rights over the use of their spectrum
2. The part of the spectrum used for WiFi is recommended for unrestricted use in science, personal communication, and automation (think WiFi, Bluetooth, RC cars...) in most ITU regions
3. Given the nature of propagation of signals on these frequences there is no need for further international negotiations, since the signal rarely crosses the borders and is not considered as harmful interference.
To summarize, ITU-R has decided that frequency band used by WiFi is unrestricted, the devices and implementations should take into consideration that others may be operating on the same frequency, and sorry but St.Lucia can charge as much as they want, non restricted by any treaties.
I'm sorry, but I'd just tell them to piss off. If they want to keep things stone-age with their confiscatory regulations, then let them. There're plenty of other islands in the sea.
The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!
What this guy wants to do isn't possible in the USA either. 2.4 GHz isn't unregulated here either... it's unlicenced, meaning that you don't have to file any paperwork or pay any fee to use it, but there's still regulations about it. Particularly, you can't have an ERP greater than 1/10 of a Watt from any single device. Yep, too strong a signal, and you're in violation of FCC rules and although it's unlikely they'll bother to look for you, you could be fined if the FCC's in town. (Read, somebody complains about your too-strong signal...)
So, you can do what T-Mobile is doing here and run an WISP at most major bookstore/cafe installations, but you can't exactly blanket the whole city with it. If you try, you'll need too many devices (and don't forget you've got to some how get power to them.)
2.4 GHz is allocated for within-the-site transmissions, with just a little spillover into the neighbor's yard. Don't try to make it something it's not.
Sometimes, even if you don't know exactly what's going on, when someone messes up the one part you DO know, you just doubt them on everything.
E.g.: Family Radio Service (FRS) is FREE! The application fee is for GMRS, radios which are more powerful, and broadcast on a slightly different set of frequencies. Presumably, the confusion comes about due to the fact that 7 of the 22 GMRS channels (more precisely, 7 of the 22 channels GMRS radios operate on) are FRS... but FRS is still free (I don't know about using GMRS radios on FRS-only freqs).
-- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
Whoever said regulations and taxes have anything to do with convenience?
Considering the West Indies is not the USA you point would be what exactly?
And a perfect example of the USA breaking a treaty is the nuclear non-proliferation treaty
Like I said, Congress needs to enact enabling legislation.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
"Detector vans" that detect televisions are a complete myth, FUD designed to scare the silly populace into compliance through the creation of an urban legend. It may very well be possible to detect a TV through the RF emissions a CRT generates, but the way the system works in the UK is really very, very simple:
A = Big list every residence in the country.
B = Big list of every residence that has paid their TV licence fee that year.
A - B = C
C = Small list of everyone who's getting a visit from the "TV Detector" vans.
It's more like Santa Claus than Star Trek, which is why there are occasionally reports of false positives with the licensing people barging into the homes of those who don't have a television.
Actually, the reason why there are so many empty broadcast stations on VHF (ie channels 2 through 13) is that they need to be dispersed enough so that they do not interfere with each other.
This has to do with graph colouring (namely the four colour theory), in that you can not have two ajacent stations broadcasting on the same frequency. Ajacency is defined as overlap between the broadcast range of the various stations.
When RCA proposed the current channel system, they set it up so that every point in the continent would be able to (theoretically) recieve 3 channels, and major centers would have 4. This would have required 13 channels (1 through 13). However, the head of the FCC at the time was upset with RCA and their strong-arm tactics, and gave a good chunk of the spectrum, that would have been needed to channel 1, to FM Radio.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
Just because you see full screen static on your TV set doesn't mean that the TV channel isn't being used, just that it's not useful in your area.
There are a few "vacant allocations" in existance, and if you look those up and send the FCC the right paperwork and pay the fee, you can own a TV station. The half million part comes in with the fact that TV broadcast towers are expensive things to build, and don't forget you'll actually be required to buy or produce programming to put on your TV station. But there's not 60 of those in every town, you'll be lucky to find 60 of those in the whole nation.
See, if you see a "full screen static" signal on channel 2, it doesn't mean that you can put a channel 2 tower where you are... if you did you'd reduce the coverage range for at least one channel 2, if not more. There's no useful channel 2 signal in Springfield, MA, but if there was a channel 2 dropped into that city it'd almost certainly interfere with WGBH-TV Boston and WCBS-TV New York. So, channel 2 sits unwatchable in that city by design.
How about paying for the license for your base station. Operating as a semi open node using no-cat or something like that. Sell 802.11 hardware with directions on how to install and tell your "customers" where to point there antennas to connect to your service.. Your customers own the equipment on there end so they would have to pay the fee if they wanted to. Get enough customers before CW or local authorities figure out what your doing heck give local politicians free service. Do you think they will want to loose broadband?.
There ARE international treaties on spectrum utilization. Except that they tend to take a extremely broad view, and only recognize a few specific services, such as shortwave broadcasting, amateur radio, radar, radio astronomy, etc. The vast majority of frequency allocations are designated for certain general types of use and the implementation is left entirely up to the national governments.
In Great Britain you have to buy a license to legally RECIEVE television channels (may no longer be true).
There are no "windows" of unregulated frequencies in the US. The FCC regulates everything from 30KHz to 300GHz. Some bands are free-er than others, but they are all regulated and all devices which emit radio frequency energy must meet FCC regulations.
It's pretty common for broadcasters to transmit from neighboring countries. The US does it on a global scale, poinding The Voice Of America into evil commie pinko countries all over the world. Just as their are companies transmitting from Mexico into the US, there are also a lot of companies transmitting from the US into Canada. International law DOES specify that signals are only subject to the regulations of the country they originate in. For example, France can't extradite you for transmitting a pro-Nazi tyrade from a US based shortwave station. Fuck Nazi's by the way, it's just the only example I could think of.
International treaties take much less notice of the higher bands, since the only way signals at those frequencies will cross many borders is via satellites. This is a problem for countries like the Canada, that basicly ends up having to copy most of the US's band-plans.
Thankfully, with few exceptions, my ham radio frequencies are protected on a global basis. Now if we could just get those god damn short wave stations off 40 meters...
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
See http://ronja.advel.cz/ - very popular here in Czech rep - 100s pcs up and running 100% OK.
Of course you might just give up because of the licensing fee for being an ISP at all (code ISP2, $5000 up front and 3% of gross).
The way to get things done in general is to find allies. Do any of the key industries (tourism, offshore banking) have a need which WiFi can fill? If so you could make a joint pitch to the government.
Also, you might check if they have any equivalent to the Special Temporary Authorization (STA) that the US FCC can issue. If you can get something like that, or argue that you're experimenting and need a code SLX, that gets your foot in the door. Then you point to the taxes you're paying and the locals you're hiring.
There are a couple of exceptions, eg. if you're running a Wi-Fi hotspot in a single place such as a coffee shop, or you're running a totally not-for-profit network, then you don't need a carrier licence. See the ACA website for the precise wording of the exceptions..
Or, as a show of public spirit, you could donate some WiFi equipment to key officials to assist them with the burdens of their labors on behalf of the community. Once they're hooked, ask politely whether there's a legal way for a fine upstanding citizen like you to keep your service in operation.
I have nothing about how you apply your attention. Please read at any level and filter whatever you like.
But I have something about your public stance on Anonymous Coward posts. It's like saying a bug report is groundless because it was not submitted by a valid Bugzilla user (assuming you are into software development). Or like saying an amateur beer is shitty because it doesn't have a Regitered commercial name (if you are into beer). Or that a gorgeous Australian shepherd is not the most beautiful dog you have ever seen because it does not have an official pedigree (if you are into Best In Show).
In Mexico, it's the custom to pay una mordita, or "the little bite". I would go ahead and set up your wireless network, and reserve some cash for any nosy inspectors. It'll probably be cheaper to pay the "inspection fee" once a year than to deal with the bullshit paperwork. Chip H.
You got a link for that "miles" part?
Get some help, freak. Find someone who cares.
I'm on my time and really don't give a fart any inane projecting you've got going. Work it out somewhere else.
I truly don't give a rats ass what some AC burps up. 99% of them are juvenile hit & run artists without the integrity to stand behind their words, invest the minimal effort into establishing some sort of identity. You can argue there's 1% of content in their shit but I don't care, I've got a life full of interesting things to do and no interest in picking through the dross.
If that concerns you then go read all the tabloids by the checkout line, dumpster dive for that possibly perfect meal, and waste your time on street-corner "personality tests".
But don't bother the rest of us with better things to do with out time & attention.
[flush]
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
To: The evil satinist EU.
We will bury you. (bangs shoe)
Filthy bribe giving eurotrash!
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
He's already famous and rich, so he'd at least have a better chance of being somewhat independent from the lobbyists.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Nigeria: open spectrum and heavy Wi-Fi use. However there is tons of interference in Lagos and the regulator recently said they might back out.
Ghana: Wi-Fi is used a lot but regulation is unclear. Reportedly a hassle to import radios. It's possible to license on the 2.4 bands, which means it's not open spectrum. IDN makes a PC/linux based access point LOCALLY.
Tanzania: unlicensed 100 mW. license for 100 mW or higher is $50 (per radio). TCC is the regulator.
South Africa: uses ancient ISM band definition. [1] Regulator recently threatened Wireless ISPs who were using 2.4 for outdoor point-to-point links!
Kenya: no clear regulation, not much use. But new government seems to be moving towards open spectrum. CCK is regulator
Uganda: open spectrum. heavy use of Wi-Fi. BushNet is one ISP that is very progressive.
simon
[1] the ancient Industrial, Scientific, and Medical (ISM) band definition didn't allow "carrier" use to carry any telecomm/internet traffic. Now there are no type-of-use restrictions AT ALL on 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz, but some countries still use the obsolete ISM definition by mistake.
home page
Yes, here in the Philppines, the 802.11b band is also regulated. A long time ago, MERALCO, the nation's largest electrical distribution company, purchased and owns an exclusive license on the 2.4 GHz band. Some of their old equipment actually uses this band, and out in the provinces (away from Metro Manila) this is an important issue. There are some pretty messy talks going underway where the large telecommunications companies and network service providers are lobbying our Congress to get our National Telecommunications Commission to revoke that 2.4 GHz franchise, by coming up with a plan that will enable the power company to gradually phase out its ancient equipment that uses that chunk of the spectrum. What with all the messes that MERALCO has gotten itself into lately, such as the Supreme Court's recent ruling that they have to pay well over 20 billion Philippine pesos (about US$ 500 millon) in rebates to their subscribers because they overcharged everyone over a period of almost a decade, I don't know whether this is going to turn out soon enough for it to matter.
Fortunately, none of this old MERALCO equipment is being used in Metro Manila and most of the provinces surrounding the capital, but that doesn't stop them from complaining.
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
The ITU just makes guidelines. Individual countries must then craft legislation to implement those guidelines, if they want to. They're not required to do so. Obviously, some don't.
I would mainly say that there's a couple of barriers:
1. Money. The government still owns the telephone company. Wi-Fi would hurt them, so they don't allow it.
2. Education. The government see short term license fees as instant income, and don't understand how Wi-Fi will help the economy.
3. Power. The regulator is still controlled by the telco, and the telco doesn't want to lose revenue to Voice over Internet fueled by Wi-Fi.
Of course in all these situations, the people,
therefore the economy,
therefore the country,
therefore the government,
would actually benefit from Wi-Fi.
simon
home page
For information, here it is US dollar per 34 point-to-point and 67 with access point - See http://ncb.intnet.mu/icta/
Arms for rum.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The World Administrative Radio Congress (WARC) recommends international spectrum allocation. Note the use of the word recommends, individual countries can (and do) ignore ITU-T and ITU-R recommendations when it suits them. (The usual reason is when some national application such as military comms or a locally developed radio system is already using the frequency band).
From memory, the 2.4Ghz frequency band in which 802.11 operates is designated for ISM (industrial, scientific and medical) use. This is traditionally a license free application - but this is entirely down to the individual countries, who may chose to charge, or impose complex licenses.
Getting copies of the official publications, defining radio specturm allocation - the ITU-R Radio Regulations, is expensive. You can order online but they cost 600-750 Swiss Francs (around 300 US dollars).
However, I see people using wireless everywhere. You can buy wireless routers and network cards in the market. It might have been difficult for organisations to do so. This delicensing, seems to be for the benefit of such organisations.
Individuals can continue breaking the law, I suppose. I doubt that the government can "crack down" on individual WiFi usage - I am trying to imagine a government inspector with a directional antenna trying to find a 5 inch by 5 inch WiFi ethernet card.
My WAN provider was using 802.11b for MAN range links in Moscow. Than I would install wired Ethernet to bring the connection to private housenholds, usually apartments in huge blocks of flats. We had up to 8Mbps over 10 to 30 km. Compare it to ADSL five years ago :-)
We used directed anntennaes and a proprietary "token ring like" protocol to manage MAN WiFi network radio-discipline.
The whole spectrum was to license from government and a couple of companies has bought off the licenses for the whole Moscow area and than would resell them to anybody.
So if you wanted to install new wifi access point, you would do that, test it and than pay one of these companies for the sub-license, so to say.
Of course there were guys who would just install their stuff and do not tell anybody. That would work if they did not advertize.
My advice - if you have this licensing stuff, do as this companies in Moscow did, get some money (from investors ?) and buy out the licenses for the hot spots at least.
...a stunned silence fell upon the hall.
They already have the WiFi solution via TMobile. Just negotiate yourself some free daily frappachinos....
10 MD
1. unlicensed spectrum is limited to a small sliver of 2.4 GHz, no 5 GHz at all
Nothing wrong with 2.4 at all, the vast majority of WISPs use 2.4.
2. output power is severely restricted legally (about 1 mW!!!)
1mW? You have to be kidding me? There isn't even a single wireless card on the market that is that low. Even the lowest card is at least 35mW, you can find 200mW cards commonly now. If 1mW is the case you can't even use wireless at all. Do you mean 1 Watt? If that's the case, that's fine unless you need to shoot 15+ miles and through some trees.
Dirk
The original post says:
I am attempting to find out the following: what international agreements govern spectrum management; what international agreements govern licensing of WiFi or 802.11; and finally, are there any Slashdot readers out there who live in countries where 802.11 technology is also licensed or heavily regulated?
That's where people from places other than St. Lucia (including, but not limited to readers from US) could help. Possibly, such people would share some advice on how well did they fare in similar circumstances. That is, not help with interpretation of St. Lucia law (which can hardly be expected), but with ways of approaching local authorities, info about relevant international treaties, etc.
Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes
There was a recent discussion (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/28/21512 37&mode=nested&tid=137&tid=193) on how the Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the UN, recommended 3rd world nations use wifi to jumpstart their technology. Any possibility there'd be some cooperation, direction or encouragement from that angle?
Um... guess again... every bit of usable spectrum is allocated...
p , quoting:
See http://www.jsc.mil/AcqSup/Gen_spec_policy&info.as
A specialized agency of the United Nations (UN), the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), coordinates international standards, regulations, and promotes the efficient use of the spectrum to maximize the potential for telecommunications services worldwide. The ITU has established an international Table of Frequency Allocations that designates specific bands of frequencies for specific uses within different regions of the globe. Each of the 188 member countries is entitled to participate in biannual World Radio Conferences (WRC) to review and revise regulations and standards. Although each country retains its sovereign right to regulate the spectrum differently within its own borders, the ITU Radio Regulations have Treaty status, and Conference results are ratified by Congress. Neighboring countries frequently negotiate special agreements that apply to their common borders, but the ITU regulations generally form the core of the regulations of its member nations, as is the case for the United States.
ITU is at http://www.itu.int/home/index.html
-----Burton
The worse case is, well, worse. Is there any current WiFi in place or in the works by others? Are those parties connected with the elites in power? If yes to both, then this is likely both kleptocracy and plutocratic protectionism. Those fees probably go straight into someone pocket rather than government coffers - assuming any get collected at all.
802.11 ISPS have to get liscences before operating
It may very well be some sort of protective measure, brought on by the tourism lobby to ensure people are out paying for scuba lessons and boat rides and not in their hotels surfing the net. Rent a surfboard and surf the waves!
There's no reason why internet access can't be a cash cow for the island as well. And the way this usually works -- with any government -- is that the regulation is put in place until someone comes to the government and says, "I'd love to start up this wonderful company, but this regulation is going to keep me from doing it. Perhaps you, Mr. Politician, could knock down this regulation, and in return I could make you a significant shareowner in the company?" If he then faces any opposition, you simply approach the opposition and make him the same offer -- voila! No more opposition, no more regulation, you're free to make as much money as you want -- giving the government a substantial cut, yes, but funny how they like to have the companies they own stock in tax exemptions, isn't it?
Of course, this regulation was put in place for just this purpose. It is there to ensure that you will grease the palms of the local politcos before you move on to this venture. This is the way of the world -- in every country. Not just St. Lucia. And yes, even in the United States.