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."

Comments

You don't want much more power!

[Garak]

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.

Re:What about Ricochet?

[tachyonflow]

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

What, you mean this Ricochet?

Chart of radio frequencies circa 1996

[LuxFX]

It isn't current, but here is a chart (PDF)
that shows how the radio bands were divided up in 1996.

Re:The more the better.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm against it if it starts consuming the important frequencies...

Like the Ham radio bands. too many times the ham radio bands are sacrificed for the good of selling some damned service that will be done half assed.

EVERYTHING that has been invented in radio was invented in Ham radio first.

hurt the ham bands, and you hurt innovation.

lower frequencies

[GigsVT]

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.

Re:lower frequencies

[part15guy]

"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."

This is not entirely true. Lower frequencies will require more complicated modulaction schemes to get the same data rates, but it is still possible.

Also, we should be careful when using the word "bandwidth" when talking wireless Internet. In the quote above, I think that it is supposed to mean datarates. However, bandwidth from an RF perspective can also mean frequency range.

Increasing RF bandwidth used is another way to get around the lower frequency issues with datarates.

Either way, this stuff does NOT belong in 900MHz. Make it at 700MHz, 2.1GHz, or somewhere else that does not require band sharing. Wireless Internet causes interference and should be given its own spectrum. We are all consumers and band hogs should NOT be tolerated.

Re:lower frequencies

[GigsVT]

Also, we should be careful when using the word "bandwidth" when talking wireless Internet. In the quote above, I think that it is supposed to mean datarates. However, bandwidth from an RF perspective can also mean frequency range

You are correct in that we must be careful with terminology, but even taken to mean RF bandwidth, my statement is still true.

At lower frequencies, bands will tend to be smaller. The 2.4Ghz band, IIRC is a couple hundred Mhz across. The 900Mhz band is only what... 5mhz wide?

These numbers are just off the top of my head, but I think you see my point.

Re:Anything would be a step forward

[hypertex]

Can do! We've connected from a hilltop to our office using an Orinoco card and a 20+dB BBQ grill looking dish antenna. It was at least 7 miles.

That article is clueless

[billsf]

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.

"New" spectrum is useless for wireless broadband

[Brett Glass]

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.