Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Feds Vacate Airwaves

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the hit-the-road-jack dept.

dada21 writes to tell us UPI is reporting that the government is getting ready to spend $936 million to move its radio communication to an obscure segment of the spectrum to make room for next-generation mobile tech. From the article: "'With 90 megahertz of additional spectrum, today's cellular carriers will be tomorrow's next-generation broadband providers,' Michael D. Gallagher, assistant secretary of commerce for communications and information, said in a statement."

45 of 153 comments (clear)

  1. value by User+956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the government is getting ready to spend $936 million to move its radio communication to an obscure segment of the spectrum to make room for next-generation mobile tech.

    Yeah, but how many billions is their currently-used chunk of spectrum worth on the open market?

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:value by dada21 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I believe TFA says about US$2 billion, with some of it already sold. They also talk about selling more radio stations off, as well.

    2. Re:value by User+956 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I believe TFA says about US$2 billion, with some of it already sold.

      That $2 billion sale they mentioned in TFA was a year ago. The sale of this spectrum won't be until at least 2009; With the rate wireless is growing (and inflation), you're looking at $7-$8 billion, easy.

      --
      The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    3. Re:value by dada21 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Doh. Go figure, I submit TFA and I didn't even read it correctly :)

  2. It's a good start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now if only they would vacate the country...

    1. Re:It's a good start. by User+956 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Now if only they would vacate the country...

      they're working on that one. Unfortunately, it will probably be after they've spent all the money.

      --
      The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    2. Re:It's a good start. by dada21 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is true -- and why I've moved entirely to a personal gold standard for currency.

      In the past 15 years, they had numerous ways to spend -- direct taxes, indirect taxes, fake social security lockboxes and the worst -- currency inflation. Now that China, Russia and the Middle East are losing faith in the US dollar, they won't be able to inflate as much, right? Wrong. In March 2006, our government has decided to stop reporting the M3 Money Supply figures -- the figures that tell the world how much counterfeit money the central bank prints.

      And they think this will make the dollar more stable?

    3. Re:It's a good start. by m50d · · Score: 4, Insightful
      And they think this will make the dollar more stable?

      Yes. This will mean noone knows that they're stepping up production to keep the US on top because the value of the dollar is basically collapsing. As long as noone notices it's about to collapse, it doesn't collapse. That's how finance works.

      --
      I am trolling
    4. Re:It's a good start. by Belseth · · Score: 3, Funny

      Come on, get in the spirit of the madness. For the cost of printing six trillion in hundreds we can be out of debt. If we print a couple of trillion extra we can go on a spending spree. It's the " I can't be broke I got more checks" theory of economics.

    5. Re:It's a good start. by God'sDuck · · Score: 2, Informative

      For the cost of printing six trillion in hundreds we can be out of debt.

      actually...that would work. of course, the resulting currency devaluation would equal an approximately $20,000 per-person tax...and you might need more than 6 trill if the currency starts plummeting before you're done shelling out the cash. but it would work.

  3. Why Sell It? by Bellum+Aeternus · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Why does our government feel the need to auction off the spectrum? Why can't they just increase the amount of availble spectrum ear marked for general purpose use? The now famous WiFi uses public spectrum and is easily the most famous radio - except perhaps radio itself.

    Selling the spectrum will only accomplish two things: 1) Make some rich companies richer. 2) reduce innovation because only said companies can use the newly availble spectrum.

    --
    - I voted for Nintendo and against Bush
    1. Re:Why Sell It? by dada21 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree with you. I blogged about it today, before I submitted the article to slashdot. I'd love to see a bigger experiment from the FCC on privatizing and anarchizing (sp?) airwaves to see how it works.

      You'll likely see some responses here from people on how their neighbor's microwave screws with their WiFi, but I run and maintain 25 WiFi networks for friends and family and we don't have a problem with a single network. I even offer my WiFi connection free to all my neighbors and they don't even call with tech support questions.

    2. Re:Why Sell It? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why does our government feel the need to auction off the spectrum?

      Selling the spectrum will only accomplish two things: 1) Make some rich companies richer. 2) reduce innovation because only said companies can use the newly availble spectrum.


      Question, meet Answer.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    3. Re:Why Sell It? by timeOday · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You'll likely see some responses here from people on how their neighbor's microwave screws with their WiFi
      I'd much rather use the spectrum with a chance of inteference than be banned from it entirely.
    4. Re:Why Sell It? by kbielefe · · Score: 4, Informative
      WiFi does not use "public spectrum." It falls under part 15 rules and therefore uses spectrum that is allocated to licensed users, at extremely low power, with the understanding that it must not cause interference and must accept any interference. In other words, your WiFi router has no more right to transmit on that channel than your neighbor's microwave oven has.

      As a licensed user of several of the WiFi channels I can transmit at 1500 watts over an entire city, if necessary to establish communication, and can interfere with any unlicensed WiFi routers on my channel with impunity. Not only that, if any of those routers are interfering with my signal, they are legally required to shut down or at least change channel.

      Think that's unfair? The designers of WiFi were aware of those requirements when they first selected the frequencies. Luckily for all you unlicensed users of WiFi, most of us hams are nice guys who like WiFi for our own networks, and are excited about the availability of cheap hardware for using that part of the spectrum.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    5. Re:Why Sell It? by CRC'99 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      WiFi does not use "public spectrum." It falls under part 15 rules and therefore uses spectrum that is allocated to licensed users, at extremely low power, with the understanding that it must not cause interference and must accept any interference. In other words, your WiFi router has no more right to transmit on that channel than your neighbor's microwave oven has.

      Actually, it's under a class license, which means the devices themselves need to pass certification to be operated in that band. It is known widely as public spectrum because it is the device that is certified for mass production that anyone can go and buy.

      As a licensed user of several of the WiFi channels I can transmit at 1500 watts over an entire city, if necessary to establish communication, and can interfere with any unlicensed WiFi routers on my channel with impunity. Not only that, if any of those routers are interfering with my signal, they are legally required to shut down or at least change channel.

      Wrong. I think you'll find that in that part of the band, the limit is MUCH less than 1500 watts. I can't recall the exact figures, but from memory, if it's over 200W transmitter power, then you need special permission. I do believe that the 2.4Ghz section of spectrum is much lower due to the potential risks at that particular band. Your request to run this kind of power (1500W) in that area would be denied. They are also not legally required to shut down their service. You can just ask nicely. You have just as much responsibility to not cause interference as they do.

      Think that's unfair? The designers of WiFi were aware of those requirements when they first selected the frequencies. Luckily for all you unlicensed users of WiFi, most of us hams are nice guys who like WiFi for our own networks, and are excited about the availability of cheap hardware for using that part of the spectrum.

      Wow. Nice to know you like to blow you're own trumpet and I love the sound of breaking a power trip. WiFi users are not required to be licensed - the equipment is as mentioned earlier. Don't make it sound like you're doing people a favour here - all I see is a snobby HAM operator blowing his horn.

      --
      Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
    6. Re:Why Sell It? by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm broadcasting at 1500 watts on that band right now. You see, I am opening and closing my microwave oven door in a pattern that makes a message using morse code. Can you hear me now?

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  4. Industry Lobbied for it? by IAAP · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The trade group, the Telecommunications Industry Association, had lobbied for the law and the follow-up report and issued a positive statement regarding the nearly $1 billion cost estimate released by the government this week.

    So, considering the track record of lobbyist and Congress, how many of you re highly skeptical that the people of th US will be getting their money's worth when the spectrums are auctioned? I know I am.

  5. 9/11 radio problems not solved? by asadodetira · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This move might be another step in the wrong direction. If i'm not mistaken in a NPR radio show an expert said that some current commercial frequencies would be extremely useful for emergency responders since they can reach deeper inside buildings. They attributed the misuse of airwaves to lobby of big media groups. Apparently a lot of the rescue radio communication problems detected after 9/11 have not been solved, changes can be quickly made when there's a commercial reason.

    1. Re:9/11 radio problems not solved? by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I read that Sprint/NexTel is selling the IDEN network that Nextel uses to the government. The PPT "walkie talkie" system plus the nation wide network should work pretty well for "first" responders. How well does it work in buildings? I have no idea. I do know that Sprint got a nice chunk of spectrum in WiMax range in exchange for the IDEN network.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:9/11 radio problems not solved? by wfberg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This move might be another step in the wrong direction. If i'm not mistaken in a NPR radio show an expert said that some current commercial frequencies would be extremely useful for emergency responders since they can reach deeper inside buildings.

      The article mentions this is about the 1710- to 1755-MHz band. This is a slightly lower frequency than current GSM-1900 or CDMA-2000 handsets use. As such, I can tell you it doesn't reach too far into buildings. Expect bad or no coverage in the basement, or in elevators.

      For emergency services, there are a lot more attractive pieces of spectrum than this one.

      In fact, emergency services in The Netherlands are finding this out just now, as they're trying to implement c2000, better known as TETRA. TETRA operates in the 380-383 MHz or 390-393 MHz range, yet these are still high enough frequencies to neccesitate a dense network of repeaters, and still it doesn't penetrate too far into buildings, which is of great concern to e.g. firefighters. Of course, since it's already cost billions to partially implement (so far), they can hardly call the whole thing off.

      --
      SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    3. Re:9/11 radio problems not solved? by josecanuc · · Score: 5, Informative

      The problem of emergency responder and public safety radio system (non)interoperability grows out of the history of growth of the systems.

      In the beginning, each agency had one or a few dedicated frequencies for communcation. The fire department might have 3 channels labeled "Primary", "Secondary", and "Tactical". Each of those would correspond to a pair of frequencies known as a "repeater pair". One frequency is the "input" to the repeater, and the other, the "output". In "idle", each radio is listening to the "output" frequency. When a fireman transmits on the radio, it transmits on the "input". The repeater listens to the input constantly. When it senses someone transmitting on the input frequency, it fires up it's transmitter on the output frequency and passes the audio from the input receiver to the output transmitter.

      (Not much has changed since then)

      Each agency (police, fire, waste, roads & bridges, etc.) of a city, plus county(parish), state, and federal agengies was in direct administrative control over their frequencies (an therefore channels). The fire department would apply with the FCC for a license for 3 repeater pairs, and the FCC would say, you can use pairs X, Y, and Z at no more than P Watts of power. The FCC determined this by ensuring that pairs X, Y, and Z were not used elsewhere in a geographical proximity that would likely be breached by a transmitter at the fire department's location based on RF propogation models at the given frequencies and terrain.

      Now, in a bigger sense, the FCC also defined the allocation of the RF spectrum for the entire radio electromagnetic radation spectrum. Not on an individual basis, but on a functional basis. Like, 150MHz - 158MHz is allocated for public safety use, and therefore frequency pairs in that "band" would be available for individual licensing to any public safety agency (police, fire, EMS, etc.) Great amounts of spectrum are currently allocated for "federal" use. Note that not all RF use is for voice communication. Some is set aside for radioastronomy: no licenses are given to allow transmitting there, so radioastronomers can be certain that if they listen in that band, there will be less human interference than if they just picked any arbitrary frequency band to monitor.

      As the technology improved and became cheaper, it became possible to utilize higher and higher frequencies. As such, whenever a band seemed "crowded", and the FCC opened up a higher band for the same purpose, it opened up a wider band. Wider bands means the same number of available channelized frequencies in the pool could be wider, and therefore carry better sound quality. Alternatively, the same quality could result with a higher count of "channels" in a band.

      Public safety and city maintenance radio systems used to operate around 30MHz and 50MHz (about 10meter and 6meter wavelenths). Those gave good range -- the radio energy from the repeater and mobile radios was not attenuated by the atmosphere too much. As the frequency increases, though, the attenuation (lessening) of the signal strength by the various components of the air increases. At the same time, there is less "other" RF energy floating around from such things as the sun and lightning in storms, so the end result was to have slightly increased power requirements on transmitters and vastly increased voice quality and vastly increased equipment maintainability. Much of RF engineering has to do with the real wavelength, so as you go shorter in wavelenth, some of your filtering hardware can get smaller and more compact.

      Eventually, every little city had a dozen or so frequencies allocated to various agencies within. It was a very inefficient use of the scarce resource of RF spectrum. If the fire department of Podunk, WV had 3 frequencies allocated to it, no other agency within, say, 100 miles could be allocated those frequencies. And you have to realize also that an FM-modulated voice signal has a real "bandwidth", and so you had to space out the "channels" of available frequenc

  6. Great. by Dharh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How much more of the spectrum are they going to give away to proprietary companies? The least they could do is _sell_ it. Sick and tired of government mismanaging the spectrum.

    --
    A warrior keeps death in the mind at all times from the moment of his first breath to the moment of his last.
  7. Not with their greed by Generic+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    today's cellular carriers will be tomorrow's next-generation broadband providers

    No they won't. With the greed and unwillingness to give customers what they really want the cell carriers shown already that they'll overprice, meter, and "extra-cost" everything. No thanks.

    --
    { - Generic Guy - }
  8. This is wonderful news by hellfire · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now that 90 Mhz of spectrum which wasn't interfering with anything anyway is no longer interfering with the cell phone spectrum which wasn't being interfered with, perhaps we can write more laws reducing interference in things previously not interfered with? Oh wait... we already have the PATRIOT act.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

  9. Non-standard uplink frequency! Grr! by O · · Score: 5, Informative

    FTFA: They're going to auction off the 1710-1755 MHz spectrum in addition to the already planned 2110-2155 MHz spectrum.

    UMTS: "The specific frequency bands originally defined by the UMTS standard are 1885-2025 MHz for uplink and 2110-2200 MHz for downlink."

    Once again, we can't use the frequencies that the rest of the world uses, so we have to get "Americas" phones with different bands or wait for Nokia et al to release "6-band" (800, 900, 1800, 1900, Euro/Japan UMTS, Americas UMTS) phones. Goddammit!

    --

    1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21 -- Mathematics is the Language of Nature.
  10. 90 mhz ain't much by baomike · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Can broadband really be put in 90 mhz?
    Consider that a SD tv channel is 6 Mhz.
    Now NTSC tv is not the most efficeint use of 6 MHz , but HD TV takes even more.
    How many people each wanting 1-10 MHz of bandwidth can you fit in this space?

    1. Re:90 mhz ain't much by Amouth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      the peoblem with that is that it is video that you are talking about.. tv is horrid when brodcast.. it needs soo much bandwith..

      when you look at a 2.4ghz netowrk (say chan 6 becsue it is most common)

      top = 2,448,000,000 hz
      bottom = 2,426,000,000 hz
      diffrence = 22,000,000 hz = 22mhz span that can be used for a 54mbit connection with a local wifi.. and done very nasty
      (90/22)*54 = 220.9 mbits avaliable)
      considering most cable modems are 3mbit and dsl is 1.5mb
      220.9 /3 = 73.6 cable or 147.2 for dsl connection speeds per cell tower..

      that is alot of free room and that is agian using a very nasty protocal..
      if they clean it up and use an effecent protocal they are going to get alot of bandwith.. and if they do something like ipv6 / leap users woln't notice they are switching towers.. TV is horid when you think about the fact that it is always brodcasting to everyone and just eating up the space.. when you use it as an as needed network it is more than enough room.. because no one is going to be using max bandwith all the time everyone will take slices and use it for only a portion of the time..

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
  11. Where are they going to? by elgatozorbas · · Score: 2, Interesting

    TFA does not say what exactly is this 'obscure part of the spectrum' they are going to. Anyone?

    1. Re:Where are they going to? by teklob · · Score: 2, Funny

      If they told you it wouldn't exactly be obscure, now would it?

  12. HDTV takes 6 MHz by michaelmalak · · Score: 2, Informative
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATSC -- emphasis added:

    The ATSC system supports a host of different display resolutions and frame rates. The formats below list frame/field rates and lines of resolution (for more informations and links, see also the TV resolution overview at the end of this article):

    • SDTV
      480i60 (NTSC), 480p24, 480p30 576i50, 576p25 (PAL, SECAM);
    • EDTV
      480p60; 576p50
    • HDTV
      720i50, 720i60, 720p24, 720p25, 720p30, 720p50, 720p60, 1080i50, 1080i60, 1080p24, 1080p25, 1080p30

    ATSC signals are designed to use the same 6 MHz bandwidth as NTSC television channels.

  13. Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does this mean that tinfoil will no longer be effective?

  14. M0 is the money printed... by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply

    M0 is the currency in circulation.

    M3 seems like a rather difficult number to nail down. Additionally, the only stuff that is in the M3 that isn't in the M2 (still reported) is stuff that is outside the US government's control. So I don't see how not reporting it fits into area of allowing more US government wrongdoing.

    To be honest, the area which really falls under the area of fiat currency nuttery is the cap between M1 and M0. It's the fractional reserve system that gold prohibits and it's the fractional reserve system that produces the gap between M0 and M1.

    Given that you'll still be getting M0 and M1 (and indeed M2), why do you think this change in reporting will increase abuses by the US government? Why should it make our already fiat currency any more ephemeral?

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re:M0 is the money printed... by dada21 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So you're saying that 600 billion dollars in print in circulation is all we need to query, and it is only those figures that affect consumer price inflation?

      I'm not sure I agree.

      First, the M3 is by far the easiest way for the Fed to inflate the currency base "secretly" without there being a huge effect in the U.S. retail economy initially. Most of the money will be offshore dollars, eurodollars and institutional money funds -- these initially have zero effect on price inflation but as the money is converted for other means, they can and will have an effect.

      The M1/M0 supply is not enough to see what government is doing to our money. If you need a better explanation, Rothbard's book is now available freely online. Go check out http://www.mises.org/money.aspx for more info on how government is destroying our wealth "secretly" and how removing the M3 figures is an even bigger crime against freedom.

      In the long run, other central banks in the world that hold our currency are the ones who keep our currency in check. If they disagree with US dollar stability, we'll find ourselves in a hyperinflating economy -- the kind that us gold bugs would love to see.

    2. Re:M0 is the money printed... by AuMatar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Except that gold has no value either. Oh, its kind of pretty, but it has no real use. If the dollar was to go hyperinflation, there's no particular reason we'd move back to gold. More likely, we'd start using Euros or other currency, just like the dollar is now defacto cash in many third world markets. If it goes so far that not even foreign bank notes are trusted, its even less likely that gold would be seen as valuable- at that point we're so FUBARed were back to barter, most likely with ammo and medicine being the most valuable items, as by that point the government has utterly collapsed.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    3. Re:M0 is the money printed... by dada21 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Gold has no value except as a store of wealth for those who use it, as a much-needy industrial metal, and as a store of wealth for every central bank in the world.

      If the dollar hyperinflates, we WOULD switch to other fiat currencies, surely. I'll still use gold as my wealth store (it is not an investment for me, merely a version of your bank). I buy everything with gold and silver (I keep my wealth stored as a hard metal, and when I need something I have avenues for converting it to the fiat currency of choice merely for a business transaction). My money has been very stable over the years, even disregarding the value of gold going up against the dollar. I'm starting to track gold ratios against consumer fuel, utility costs and other "real life" costs and I'm surprised at how solid the metal has been over the past 3 years versus those prices.

      Would we ever switch to a gold standard? I hope not -- gold is still artificially cheap and I'm happy to keep buying it. Hell, I love the fact that everyone eats the US dollars up -- it helps me save for the future at a discount.

    4. Re:M0 is the money printed... by AuMatar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, if you fear the dollar devaluing you should be taking out loans- as much as you can. By the time you have to pay them off, it'll be pocket change. Inflation and hyperinflation are good for people with massive debt.

      Gold still doesn't make sense though. You need money in 3 forms:

      1)Short term- money to spend at the movies or the market. This is still cash, I can't walk into 7-11 and give them gold. Basicly cash on hand.

      2)Long term- this is investments, so the money grows. Whatever form that investment is (buisnesses like you said are investments. Fairly risky since half of new buisnesses fail in 5 years, but highly profitable if they pan out).

      3)Medium term- a larger cash supply for emergencies, big ticket items, and monthly payments. Again, it needs to be cash, or easily convertible. It also shouldn't be too much, with overflows going to long term. You could use gold here, but its pointless to- the money shouldn't be here for long, and gold just adds to your risk. Someone can put a gun to your head and ask for your gold, he can't do that with your bank. Its such a small amount of money circulating so rapidly that worrying about inflation is pointless, unless that inflation is Weimar Republic levels.

      In short, it still just makes no sense.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  15. Great! by heatdeath · · Score: 3, Informative

    Now if only they would get rid of the almost 1Ghz allocated to fixed-point communications, like satellite communications, and maritime and aeronautical navigation. I wish they would force them to use their spectrum more wisely instead of forcing something that everyone uses to be crammed into a tiny space. (Satellite should be using UWB - they have to have dishes anyway - they can afford to receive a signal that is just above the background signal strength)

    http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf

    --
    I'm sorry. The number you have reached is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again.
  16. Karma whore; pretty chart by michaelmalak · · Score: 5, Informative
    U.S. Frequency Allocation Chart

    The frequencies discussed in the article, 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz, can be found on the right side of the fifth bar.

  17. about bloody time the feds gave something back by swschrad · · Score: 3, Informative

    the government controls 99% of the spectrum, useable and experimental, and this is the first time they have ever given back a single kilocycle of allocation. in the past, it has always been nonprofit, public safety, and commercial use that has been tagged for reallocations.

    congratulations for finally stepping up to the plate, and many more for uncle selfish.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  18. Power by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The problem with open spectrums like 2.4GHz is they have to be low power and either short range omni, or medium range but narrow direction. The reason is that if anyone can set it up, there has to be a reasonable expectation that your equipment will work and not be interfered with by others.

    I mean suppose there was no limits on the 2.4GHz spectrum. So you go and buy a little, low power wireless device and hook it up. You get nothing, in fact, the device gets damaged. Why? Well turns out I live down the block, and I use that band for high power transmissions. I have a 10,000 watt transmitter that I use to get my data all over the city. What's more, I'm not using part of the spectrum, I'm using all of it. My signal just blocks out yours because it's so much more powerful.

    So, when you want something that is going to be higher power, longer range, and deployed on a wider basis, there needs to be some licensing to keep people from stepping on each other's toes all the time. I want my communications providers sharing the spectrum, not playing a power game to see who can block who out.

  19. What about the mass spectrum space above 30 GHz by jrmcferren · · Score: 2, Informative

    People don't realize the spectrum only seems small. I dream of cable TV being sent to the home, car, handheld, etc by celluar radio. Gigabit wireless, hundreds of thousands of broadcast channels, and more brought to you by EHF. EHF is the portion between 30 GHz and Infared (300 GHz). Public safety would beneift as these frequencies as not many buildings can block EHF. Police would be able to see a picture from an APB (if avalible) along with the audio description. There would be no more long antennas as wavelengths are reaching milimeters and centimeters at this point.

    --
    sudo mod me up
    1. Re:What about the mass spectrum space above 30 GHz by jgrafton · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Everything at such a high frequency will have to be line-of-site, however, as there's no hope of bouncing off the ionosphere or anything.

      It could be done, yes, but it'd involve quite a high investment.

  20. Re:Non-standard uplink frequency! Grr! by rabtech · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think you mean the rest of the world refuses to use the same frequencies we use. We picked the vast majority of them first. We invented the technologies for and allocated the frequencies for AM, FM, TV (which is just FM), Radar, Cell, et al first almost without exception (in terms of commercial or public availability, not necessarily in terms of first invention/patent)

    It is the rest of the world (Europe, Japan, China, etc) that refuses to use the standards we created.

    --
    Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
  21. Re:about bloody time the feds gave something back by rabtech · · Score: 4, Informative

    the government controls 99% of the spectrum, useable and experimental, and this is the first time they have ever given back a single kilocycle of allocation. in the past, it has always been nonprofit, public safety, and commercial use that has been tagged for reallocations.

    congratulations for finally stepping up to the plate, and many more for uncle selfish.

    Actually that isn't true... check the chart at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf

    The vast majority of the spectrum is non-government exclusive or shared government/non-government. Only the sections with RED under them are government-exclusive allocations.

    --
    Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)