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."
on the Mana Drain when they detonate?
or their lumber collecting abilities?
lysergically yours
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).
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)
Not only that, if this sort of thing continues, I will be able to cook my food just by bringing it outside!
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
Nobody is going to pay millions of dollars to have to cooperate and share... millions are only payed when a monopoly is guaranteed.
--Mike--
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.
A whole 50MHz chunk of bandwidth?
What would -you- do with all of it?
Three 14-MHz (70ish Mbps to nearby sites under good conditions) and one 7-MHz (35ish Mbps ditto) WiMAX base stations - times several antenna sectors, times several base stations in an array like cellphone sites.
Or maybe split it differently (like 3 or 5 7MHz channels for cells and 2 or 1 14s for networking the cells) to allow better signal quality in the cells by preventing channel reuse for some distance behind the cell.
You could (un)wire a whole city that way.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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?
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)
It specifies non-exclusive usage, meaning you can't stake out a section of geography as exclusively yours. Buy a chunk in an area with hopes of "building" later and you'll just lose your money.
Non-exlcusive usage means the prices for the licenses should be low -- mostly "maintenance" fees. (Supply isn't really limited.)
And at 25 Watts of power for fixed stations, it makes sense so they can build a database where people can look up fixed locations for coverage, etc.
So lighten up.
-Charles
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
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!
Actually, lots of other people have identified the specific problems this kind of licensing poses for low power apps, like WiFi mesh, that offer real local community value. Shortsighted dismissal of that conflict plays right into the hands of large corporate interests, like Intel's, which were protected by this process, despite lots of public opposition.
--
make install -not war
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