Slashdot Mirror
FCC Opens More Spectrum for WISPs
flirzan writes "Today the FCC announced that they will be opening up new spectrum for use in wireless broadband applications. The new spectrum will run from 3650-3700 Mhz, and requires that licensees register all system base stations. This is great news for wireless ISPs everywhere, as it will make interference avoidance/mitigation much easier. Licenses will run 10 years, and are renewable and transferable. No word yet on how much the licenses are expected to cost or when they'll be available."
No wait, the other thing - tedious.
I hope the liscences dont go the same way as the 3G mobile liscences in the UK... Those were a disaster and have held back the industry if anything.
My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
to say "All your base are belong to us."
Attention all planets of the Solar Federation! We have assumed control! - Neil Peart
on the Mana Drain when they detonate?
or their lumber collecting abilities?
lysergically yours
If i can't get wireless internet now because of trees and too far away...i might be able to soon?
so will this be the end of the cable modem and wired internet?
Does this mean I have to take my current 3650-3700 Mhz base down?
I knew the FCC were a bunch of uptight fundamentalist whiteys, but geez.
This is good news for companies making mobile devices with lots of storage. After all, that storage is not very useful if there isn't infrastructure (i.e.: bandwidth) available to transfer data easily.
This might also help out community wireless attempts, since at least one part of the technology is being standardized, and the licenses are rather long (10 years).
What would -you- do with all of it?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
This is surely a good thing, WISP's are currently operating using the ISM and UNII bands with extremely low EIRP levels.
The new rules are as follows:
"Fixed stations will be allowed to operate with a peak power limit of 25 Watts per 25 megahertz bandwidth, and mobile stations with a peak power limit of 1 Watt per 25 megahertz bandwidth."
Just how much of the spectrum is left for the FCC to pass out. And who dictates the spectrum elsewhere? Not to sound all Anti-American but the fcc is not all powerful.
Wait, are they?
Procrastinating life a way at a rapid rate of speed.
There should be several calsses of spectrum for WIFI data transit.
one spectrum range would be for station-to-station communications
one spectrum can be for user-to-station communications
one spectrum can be for user-to-user communications.
I am not a wireless engineer, so i dont know what frequencies are suitable for for what distances etc, but you should have one range for high-bandwidth medium-long range. (such as the spectrums mentioned here)
So multiple channels in a particular cell, in such a number of channels where you dont overlap channels in adjacent cells. (802.11[n])
Next you would have less bandwidth, more available channels and medium range. Finally you would have short range, medium badnwidth limited channels.... (bluetooth etc)
With licenses valid for ten years, they will likely cost the same as cellular licenses. Millions of dollars! They may even have to do lotteries like they do with the cellular providers.
Perhaps this would allow for citywide coverage using only your 802.11g card?
How will 802.11s come in to play here?
It would be damn nice if I could go to a coffee shop other than starbucks to get wireless internet with my morning drink.
Can someone please tell what bandwidth would be available to the humble end user in this frequency range? By bandwidth I really mean bits per second. I am assuming that customers would compete for the same bandwidth and be capped somehow. What would this cap be? More/less than current cable modem allowances?
Inquiring minds need to know.
Thanks.
Wireless Broadband Providers: You have your spectrum play-pen, now do yourselves a favor, and get the hell off the ISM bands with your 802.11x crap for your commercial endeavors. Thank you.
The total bandwidth seems small, only 50 MHz which is less than the 94 MHz of space available for 802.11b. Throw in the need for non-overlapping channels, interference, etc. and this version of wireless broadband will probably offer less bandwidth that original WiFi.
I can only hope that the higher emitted power will let service providers boost SNR (rather than space-out the antennas further) to provide more digital bandwidth within their limited radio bandwidth allotment.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Isn't it interesting that when dealing with bands the huge companies don't want, the spectrum is licensed on a renewable basis, while spectrum that is particularly valuable (to the public that owns it) is sold out-right to big conglomerates?
ALL spectrum should be licensed like this new band is supposed to be. Viacom can afford it, believe me.
--GrouchoMarx
Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?
Sure, it's great news if you want to buy a license from the government for what could have been unlicensed spectrum, like the nearby 2.4GHz WiFi band. Or if you are a financed "first mover" who will "pioneer" the band, if it's unlicensed, and get a perpetual permit to control that band in that geography - even if the real apps come later, and have to pay you to play.
This could have been a boon to P2P mesh networks communities, which depend on unlicensed spectrum to exist. Instead, it's another carve-out of public resources, revised into corporate property, regardless of its contribution to technical progress or the public interest.
--
make install -not war
They will hack the tin foil hats whatever... never give up until you succeed.
The new spectrum will run from 3650-3700 Mhz
Guess I'll need to add another layer to my tinfoil hat.
hack a day
It's a reference to a Night Elf unit from Warcraft III, called a Wisp.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
There was some talk a while back about allowing WISP's into unused UHF spectrum.
Most rural areas have next to no UHF TV channels and very poor broadband availability. It was hoped this would take advantage of that reality by allowing good hill-following spectrum to be available for rural Internet users, on a renewable basis that would give preference to new UHF TV stations (as if).
No jokes about pig porn, please.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The FCC regulates the Broadband Radio Services (BRS). This is (now) typically broadband internet access, and happens in from 2.495 GHz to 2.690 GHz, and uses spectrum formerly set aside for (oxymoron alert) wireless cable TV. You, too can get a license in this band for a $230 filing fee, today.
There is another band, 3.400 GHz to 3.600 GHz that's also currently set up for licensed wireless data, a la wi-fi. I don't have a link to this service unfortunately.
What the new announcement from the FCC adds to the party is something similar to GMRS or business band radios-- shared spectrum open only to licensed users. TFA mentions Part 90 as the section of rules that will cover this new spectrum. That's the same section of rules that covers business band radios (and whose licenses cost $100-ish). I would also expect frequency coordination to come into play at some point with this new service, just like you have with other Part 90 services. (Coordination tries to prevent harmful interference and squabbling.)
What exactly is the expected propogation with 25watts at 3.xx Ghz? How far will it transmit information?
How fast is any proposed standard for using this spectrum? Surely somebody had a plan, and submitted it with their request for spectrum. What is the standard and how fast is it?
What are the channel allocations within that same proposed standard? While 50Mhz doesn't seem like a big spread, it is not difficult to actually engineer something that is selective enough to work on the half Mhz. That would allow 50 one way, and 50 another way.
Overall I find this story leaves more questions asked than answered. When this is actually implemented in 4-7 years, will it revolutionize wireless, or simply be a bottleneck loosener?
Who is this that even the wind and the waves obey Him? Surely this computer must submit also!
A 50Mhz channel in the 3Ghz space is not going to change the world of wireless. The spectrum won't propogate worth a crap and 50MHz is not enough to really solve bandwidth or channel interference issues. It will be as noisy as 2.4 and won't work as well.
A most overlooked advantage to owning a computer is if they foul up there's no law against wacking them around a bit.
When the noise in your neighborhood gets to be too much for you with everyone having an access point, do the following: 1. Take the door off of your microwave oven. 2. Place in backyard. 3. Turn on for 20 seconds. 4. Remeasure You should find that you have the neighborhood to yourself (except for those annoying 802.11a people)
A most overlooked advantage to owning a computer is if they foul up there's no law against wacking them around a bit.
The key word here is "non-exclusive"... they're not treating it as property this time, more like the the town commons. If this works the way I think it will, there will be a low fee to cover administrative overhead, just like the Amateur Radio service.
Nobody is going to pay millions of dollars to have to cooperate and share... millions are only payed when a monopoly is guaranteed.
Unfortunately, some of the protocols (like WiMAX) assign timeslots. That means somebody arbitrates the timeslots. That somebody is the base station - or the station "performing the base station role". (When you're doing a WiMAX mesh it gets more complicated...)
Notice that the FCC is licensing the base stations...
The way I read this: WiMAX base stations need to perform local mastering functions in order to assign timeslots and subchannels in their region - while WiMAX non-base stations ("subscriber stations" in WiMAX standard-ese, but think of it as "the ordinary guys") defer administrative decisions to base stations. That means that, if you set up a contention-based protocol between base stations to divvy up bandwidth-authority in their vicinities, the base stations are in a position to cheat by asking for more than their share and the subscriber stations are not.
So the FCC is requiring base stations to obtain a license. This means they can identify them and subject them to greater scrutiny. And it means they can revoke the license if they're found to be cheating, and bring charges and levy fines against any who are violating the terms of their license, as well as anyone who operates a base station without getting a license.
This doesn't hamper people who want to set up a mesh of non-"base station" peers, provided they use a contention-based protocol that defers to any licensed base stations within range. No base stations & contention based means no license required.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Pwah! I don't need to RTFA to know it's a hoax.
If there really was a new Spectrum coming, and especially if it was going to run from 3650-3700 Mhz, these guys would be the first to tell us.
I wonder why they're requiring all AP's to be registered.
Is there a reason that all of the new techology runs on higher 2.4Ghz spectrum and not lower frequencies? Is there a correlation or is it just how things have worked out?
If there's a correlation, it could be the FCC pre-empting wi-fi regulation by laying down the rules before future technology is adopted.
It's the government afterall, so the FCC would likely know about new technology long before we consumers would.
What if the next-gen WiFi devices, etc. are designed or forced to operate in this new spectrum; and thusly, regulated/registered?
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
The FCC has granted us more WISPs, but still persists in less BOOBs.
And no micropower or pirate radio.
FalconShould there be a Law?
That would be unlicensed operation in the TV bands, now being standardized by IEEE 802.22, the newest 802 working group.
I live in Houston, slum-capital of the world. I doubt the 5th ward with their crack-smokin' mommas and their homey gang-banga boyfriends, cuz each woman's got at least 2, needs broadband wireless. I mean, c'mon G, I ain'tz gotta look up on AOL hows to blast a cap in some n*gga's ass! I jus pull up to his girl's bumpa and tell him to drop them Nike's off his ass before I blast that mutha!
Cities need to re-evaluate their expenditures before jumping on the broadbandwagon (to coin a word). Raising taxes (because you know it's going to happen) just to install something that most people already have access to is just plain stupid. If anything, they should offer the service at a severely discounted rate - less than the current market competitors. This could influence the adaptation of the service and integration into society. However, since every arguement has 2 sides, I'd rather see Houston fix Holmes Rd first, then worry about giving Darnell and his 8 kids access to broadband pr0n.
This is also an excellent way of opening up new jobs in the city since someone has to run this thing and keep it secure. The only problem is, Darnell, the daddy of the 8 pr0n-watching kiddies, is probably not going to be a candidate since he's more than likely too broke to afford a computer - meaning he knows nothing about supporting end-users and services. I know it'll piss you all off when I say this, but where the moeny is, the brains are. When I moved back to Houston, I felt like my smartness dropped 50 points and I got stupider.
Anyway, my point is, cities need to tread cautiously when entering a market with high expectations and choosing methods to support their efforts. Mass taxation is not the way since I forementioned most people having access to other ISPs. This could likely turn ugly since some ISPs might interpret this as a "get the hell out of our city" maneuver.
-- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!