Slashdot Mirror
FCC To Expand Wireless Spectrum
Makarand writes "According to this article in the SF Chronicle the
FCC will expand the wireless spectrum
to push broadband into rural areas. However, consumer groups were quick to point out that
these frequencies are not powerful enough to handle long range broadband communications.
They want the FCC to open lower frequencies that can penetrate through walls and trees for
wireless applications in rural areas."
Sometimes, the best links on an article are the ones that go to yet another story.
SFGate.com also has this interesting article from almost a year ago on the return of Ricochet:
Ricochet is also targeting residents who can't get high-speed access otherwise. Its signals are sent from radios on poles and rooftops, allowing users with laptops and other mobile devices to stay connected while they roam around.
It sounds like Ricochet is going to use the unregulated 900 MHz band to do the same thing that the FCC is going to do with regulated spectrum (that's already in use by the military).
Of course, another kicker is this paragraph:
Aerie Networks Inc. has resurrected Ricochet, spending $8.25 million for technology and equipment that Metricom spent $1.3 billion developing.
Of all the times to have spent $8,250,000 on lottery tickets!
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
I live in Rural Britain. We need the FCC to enable much lower signals so that we can _finally_ get broadband.
:)
I can't wait
Hurrah!
Hey, more Hz is good.
They will find uses for each frequency range. Even if not the best, it's a start.
I think wireless networking is the coolest personal computing invention since the mouse.
Pretty Pictures!
Oh, okay. I'll stop complaining now. Everything will be alright.
Whoa wait a minute here. Us rural folk out here in South Dakota just got electricity, now you want to give us wireless. Does this mean I could surf the net from my covered wagon and be warned of an Indian raid by my friends through my MSN Messenger
"Its too hot out for a Penguin to be just walking around. - Billy Madison"
Excelent news but what about developing Wi-Fi protocol that does not have inherent security flaws?.. or is it realm of consumer education how to turn on encription and password on the wireless routers?..
Just because I don't care, it doesn't mean I don't understand. Homer J. Simpson
I just want it to be something small enough so it goes through me. wireless networks are everywhere these days... and somehow I like the idea that wherever I am there will be porn in my heart.
-You're wasting your time. Alfador only likes me.
You don't want much more power, not only for security reasons but for frequency reuse!
Keeping the power down lets you use the same frequencys over and over again in the same city. If you went with more power and lower frequencys you would interfear with people accross town using the same frequencys.
You don't need more power to go the distance. For point to point links you can use high gain dish's to go the distance. To cover larger areas you just deploy lots of cheap lower power access points/routers.
God, root, what is the difference?
Consumer groups should know that thanks to lower frequencies that can penetrate through walls and trees
Yeah, those damn radio stations.
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
I never have any problems with my wireless connection in the trees. They don't stand a chance against my wireless tool
"This is a bad thing (tm)"
SCO will come after you for violating the trademark!! or will it be Fox news?...
Just because I don't care, it doesn't mean I don't understand. Homer J. Simpson
Nah, it's the damn medical sciences!
No wonder the FCC is so benevolent as to donate this spectrum to wireless internet services - they know its about to become useless thanks to pollution from BPL.
How about adding some wireless support in the 15-meter band and upping the watts? Around the world wirless, could create a pure-wireless network.
Blogzine
Fortress of Insanity
I really should move to the northern part of Mexico and set up a transmitter on a very low frequency. Then, I could do a region-wide broadcast, given sufficient power, on some unused frequency. I wish the FCC luck in blocking my photons which happen to be travelling in a wavelength they don't like...
Why are we allowed it? Cause it's no use to anyone else. It has all the problems of the 2.4GHz band without the balancing advantage of upper atmospheric scatter like with 10Ghz.
When can I have my Wi-Fi LAN runing on ELF :)
Q.
Insert Signature Here
Lets shake up the radio spectrum with broad WiFi range so we can all get affordable broadband access instead through cable or dsl. The only news of Wi-Fi and broadband is usually about Starbucks.
"the FCC will expand the wireless spectrum"
I'm not sure if the FCC has the authority to widen the electro-magnetic spectrum.
I'm a mere seven miles outside a city. It's not a metropolis by any means, but those seven miles are the difference between DSL/Cable and absoultely no real broadband.
And no, DirecWay does not count.
Anything they would do to close that gap and allow us people who live out in "the country" to participate in the broadband revolution would be a blessing.
I keep hearing that broadband is failing because it costs too much or there is no real content that people want. No one ever mentions the fact that there is a large segment of the population that flat out has no real options.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going back to downloading my 152 meg game demo. It should be finished sometime before the sun explodes.
ULF access sounds _interesting_ Imagine...
. .."
. ni...s... sir!"
"Captain... Con... we've just been pinged".
"Pinged? Shit! Red Alert"
"Sir, there is an incoming message. It says... W...o...u...l...d....you....l...i...k...e....t..o
"Any more sailor?"
"Sir yes sir. e..n..l..a..r....g..e....y.ou...r..e.....p....e..
I am very familiar with the US spectrum and licencing... But what they really need to do is dedicate a portion of the spectrum for these type of applications.. Not make it Unlicenced... Unlicenced specrum is not the best for a commercial application.. Also.. Just on a note... The whole Spectrum is wireless :) they can't broaden it anymore :)
Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
Frequencies.... Not powerful? WTF.
People who don't know shit about radio shouldn't write about it.
No pain, no gain
Yep - I had to choose between "this is a dumb comment" and "this is really funny", and I jumped the wrong way - I obvioulsy need more coffee...
And if you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you!
Why would the indians attack? They are too busy running their casinos.
It isn't current, but here is a chart (PDF)
that shows how the radio bands were divided up in 1996.
Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
I think i read an ask slashdot a while back about doing away with Broadcast Television in favor of free (socialized) wireless internet. I didn't oppose to this but many did becaused they still watch broadcast...
so what i'm trying to ask is... was this bandwidth unallocated, or are we giving something up here?
Lower frequencies that can penetrate walls and trees aren't likely going to give you anything you'd consider broadband speeds. You might be able to get a couple Mbits at 900Mhz, but once you get more than a few people sharing it, it's not going to be so hot. To go even lower means less and less bandwidth available.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
My bone conduction hearing aid has interferences with many cellular phones and WAPs (if I am close enough to one).
Will this FCC's decision going to make the situation worse for those who wear hearing aids like me?
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
bitch.
NLOS is the way to go The Line-of-site requirement kills a lot of wireless broadband rollouts.
... WiFi. However, it was ubiquitous in most of SF Bay Area. I'd buy it again except that the little NIMBY town where I live never allowed the poletop relay units. In Mountain View and Walnut Creek, I usually got 75 to 100 kbit speeds. The poletop units are still out there, slowly being decimated by vandals and the weather.
As for 5 GHz being a wimpy spectrum, no part of the spectrum is wimpier than another, but 5GHz does suffer rain and fog attenuation.
I friend from college operates a successful rural ISP that offers WiFi service (www.htcomp.net). That works now.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
Since we all are moving to HDTV (yeah right). Why not use all the now empty TV channels? The TV band is perfect (penetration, propagation, cost of equipment), and the broadcast antennas are usually in good locations. Plus the span from 2-69 is wide enough to accomodate a lot of people.
I've had wireless internet for about six weeks now, courtesy of KeyOn, and it seems to me it's the way to go. It's as cheap as dial-up, less than half the cost of DSL, and I haven't noticed it slow down much even with four computers online at the same time. It does tend to go offline (sometimes for hours) when it rains, but maybe that's because I'm near extreme range. Fortunately it doesn't rain much in Nevada.
Take it from an experienced analogue engineer. Lets be more direct, the analogue engineer that gave you cheap "wireless" datacom and the analogue engineer who's idea was completely rejected in Silicon Valley. --- You guys there in my old home town are really clueless!
There are ways to use 'lower' frequencies and not cause interferrence. However using lower frequencies means you MUST sacrafice bandwidth. Sure i know 'broadband' is something different in America than here in Europe. We have quality telephone wires to our central offices to start with. Certainly this eliminates the need to use radio spectrum. Radio is great for mobile applications, but the way you people think in the USA, you will be receiving your downlink from a TV transmitter and your uplink will be a dialup at a measly 33.4kb/s! This is disgusting. You really are a bunch of sheep.
Which will mess up my 802.11a wireless on the same frequency. I love 802.11a - much less interference than 802.11b/g on 2.4 GHz, better performance, and less haxors to worry about.
I have yet netstumble across other access points using 802.11a, although trimode a/b/g cards are pretty cheap.
joking aside, i think that's trademarked (along with "Good Thing(tm)" to martha stewart.
We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
Unfortuantely, while the FCC is giving lip service to wireless broadband, its proposed rules actually hurt it rather than help it. The "new" spectrum can't be used outdoors, and the transmitters have to shut up if a signal that looks anything like radar is detected. (Can you say "DoS attack," boys and girls? I knew you could.) What's more, older transmitters operating on that band would have to be removed. So, the FCC's proposed rules are a step backward, not a step forward.
FCC management performs as well as CIA, FBI, DOD, NASA, LANL, ... management. Management (2 out of 3) in Government are mediocre to poor performers at their job (US Business is about the same). I do not know any of them to be wife-beaters, but they are employee abusers. They let the foot-soldiers, worker-bees, pack-mules, ... of their organization know that they are in charge of the work-place world, that everyone is replaceable (except themselves), that what you provide to them in the work environment is their IP product and only their name will appear on external distributions. These managers contract out as many jobs as possible to USA business, foreign countries if possible or by whoops double-blind sub-contract outsourcing. They are more interested in image then performance. They excel at suck-up socializing, playing golf to lose, drink to be a part of the management team, they are prostitutes in wool-suits and ties.
... are not gangs interested in the public welfare, but they do show a consistent interest in exploitation of the citizens of the US, EU, ....
The FCC will continue to do the stupid things that are politically correct for the Capitalist Republic. FCC performance in the public interest has been exceptionally poor. Politicians, IP/PO, FTC, WTO, IMF,
OldHawk777
Reality is a self-induced hallucination. So, don't whine about my comments, because your hallucination is different.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
When can I have my Wi-Fi LAN runing on ELF :)
When you don't mind sharing a 50-75 bps channel with the nuclear submarine fleet and every other internet user in the world.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
the image of a giant death beam blasting away a happy little neighborhood came to mind..
:)
anyone else have these thoughts?
because I'd love to have a wifi device that does that
FCC will expand the wireless spectrum
... just two times too big.
Nice trick if you can do it, I guess.
Like Scotty sez: "Its again' the laws o' Physics."
To the Engineer the glass is neither half full nor half empty
to the Engineer, the glass is neither half full nor half empty. Its just two times too big.
Wassat mean then? Is 'red' more powerful than 'green'? (does mauve have more RAM?)
SteveB.
"FCC will expand the wireless spectrum"
They can't do that without first changing the laws. And the US Congress can't help them there. I wish them the best of luck in expanding the spectrum, we could use lots more space.
Meanwhile I think they'll have to make due by juggling some allocation of spectrum.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
sounds like good times!
The bigger the brain, the harder to kill.