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."
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.
No, when the restrictions were challenged, they surrendered.
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.
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 think what he may be looking for is whether or not the local laws violate any international agreements that the country may have signed.
IANAL... But I play one on
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
It's getting better, just.
There are still very strict limits on signal strength in normal circumstances outside buildings. But the regulatory body started to grant 'exceptional' licences last October, mainly in rural areas where France Telecom refuse to install terrestial broadband (FT replaced MS as the company I most like to hate some time ago...)
As with anything else in France, you have to produce an enormous dossier, a large part of which involves showing that your installation won't crash any jets at the local air base, as wifi uses a French military frequency. You would have thought that the military would shift, but there you are.
Last time I looked (a couple of weeks ago) I think 20 or so licences had been awarded across the country.
Virtually serving coffee
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.
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
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.
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.
Thus if anyone goes to war with France, crippling their military communications will be even easier than previously expected.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
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".
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.
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.
There are a large number of international treaties on spectrum usage. However, I don't know that any of them apply to such high frequency signals. Mostly, they have to do with AM and lower bands (which have the possibility to go hundreds or thousands of miles, and thus become an international concern) or things like the FM bands used for commercial air flight. 2.4 GHz, however, had very little international concern except the interoperability of hardware between different contries. Even among the contries that declare 2.4 GHz as an unlicensed part of the spectrum, there are varying regulations on broadcast power and the like.
Treaties do not "trump" law within a nation. Treaties are agreements between soverign states, not legislation internal to a state. A nation must enact its own enabling legislation before its citizens are subject to the terms of the treaty.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
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.
Some people do it anyway.
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.
And in most cases, "not interfering" means that the only frequencies regulated are the long-range communication frequencies that are likely to cross borders.
:-)
Shorter-range communication may also be covered by international agreement if it's near a border. For example, there are amateur radio UHF frequencies which are legal to use if you're south of Aberdeen, Washington but illegal north of it, to prevent interference with Canadian commercial mobile radio.
The result is that if there is an international agreement, it's probably restrictive.
You could always disguise your equipment as microwave ovens and say they're just a bit leaky
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
Well, "just from a friend", but he was referring to the fact that as Sydney Wireless grows, and as some machines are connected to the internet, it may be constituted as a part of the internet. "Due to legal issues, the sharing of the Internet on the 2.4GHz Spectrum is illegal in Australia but common use of the wireless local area network (WLAN) include games, FTPs, web servers, VOIP phone calls, video conferencing and the like. There are other exemptions, such as close relationship rules, for companies suppling Internet and LAN to employees." [source: http://australia.internet.com/r/article/jsp/sid/11 840]
But yes, its all hearsay..