Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC OKs On-Body Medical Networks

Posted by samzenpus on from the can-you-feel-the-waves? dept.

itwbennett writes "On Wednesday the FCC approved the use of medical micropower networks (MMNs) in four blocks of the 400MHz spectrum band despite opposition from broadcast engineers who say they are concerned about interference. MMNs can be used to bypass areas of the nervous system that have been impaired by strokes or spinal cord or brain injuries."

14 of 41 comments (clear)

  1. How does this help me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    with my plan on world domination?

    Posting Anonymously for obvious reasons.

    1. Re:How does this help me by michelcolman · · Score: 2

      Apparently, a guy called Mark Zuckerberg is already investing in practical uses for this network in both sick and healthy people. Think about the possibilities! You no longer have to update your FaceBook status manually, your body will do it for you! Taking a leak... drinking beer... looking at girl... getting aroused... Together with the levels of blood sugar, testosterone,... Everything will be posted automatically without you even having to lift a finger. And you'll even receive relevant ads to enhance your experience even more. In time, more and more data will be posted automatically, always with the option of opting out of course.

    2. Re:How does this help me by Ihmhi · · Score: 2

      "Jim is at Wilton Public Library."

      "Jim has added Mrs. Roswell as a friend."

      "Jim has an erection."

      --
      Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
  2. One step closer by idlehanz · · Score: 2

    To getting "them internets" wired directly into the frontal lobe...

    --
    Changing the world... one research project at a time.
    1. Re:One step closer by silverglade00 · · Score: 4, Funny

      He only needs/wants the red one.

  3. This could go horribly wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Unless these devices have even the most basic of basic frequency-knocking or some sort of unique ID system, this could end up horribly wrong.
    God forbid some poor people ended up next to each other and interfered with each other.

    If they do, however, then alls good. Completely for it.
    Frequency-knocking or ID systems would prevent any interference outside of malicious intent.
    So the devices would essentially be safe in almost all cases.

    Now the only worry would be EMP explosions that could completely nuke the circuit. Let's hope they thought of that...

    1. Re:This could go horribly wrong. by glop · · Score: 2

      As far as I am concerned, I'd want code multiplexing or other interference avoiding techniques. And then full encryption with authentication to make sure the components that have been paired and only them can give each other orders.
      I mean, this is going to be some guy's way of commanding his limbs. Nobody wants a script kiddie to be able to play Darth Vader's grip of death with a poor guy's 'Luke' prosthetic arm that did not have adequate protection...

    2. Re:This could go horribly wrong. by ATestR · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, the real concern was interference from Amateur Radio signals. The frequency range that these devices plan to use is in the 440 - 450 MHz range... which is right where a bunch of the little hand held ham radio units operate. The ARRL (National Amateur Radio Association) was the biggest group against the proposed usage, and the FCC only permitted the use with the prevision that it was Secondary to the existing licensees (HAMs). In other words, the medical devices cannot interfere with the radios, and they have to be able to live with any signals produced by radios. Here is an in depth article regarding the FCC grant.

      --
      âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
    3. Re:This could go horribly wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're preaching to the choir. The FCC has made so MANY great decisions about spectrum sharing in the recent past. Broadband over Power Lines (BPL) and the wonderful Lightsquared LTE phone network debacle located right on top of the GPS band. They don't seem to grok the concept of "THESE DECISIONS MIGHT GET PEOPLE KILLED!"

      Am I over reacting here?

      If I can't take my cell phone into a medical area for fear of screwing up some life critical device in a medical office, why in the hell does the FCC think that the technology of these systems is going to be so good that my 1W 440Mhz transmitter isn't going to overload the little receiver and kill someone?

      I'm currently working on a commercial project that uses an extremely low power RF system. These systems are NOT robust because they can't afford the power or the real estate to do so! What filtering - and from and IN-BAND multi-watt transmitter. Don't forget - I'm allowed to put out a KW! (Well not here in CA - something about Beale Air Force Base..)

      STOOOPID!

  4. Why wireless by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In some instances, like communicating to implants from the outside without breaching the skin barrier, I can understand the use of radio signals - although induction sounds simpler, less power-hungry and more localized to me.

    But for implant-to-implant communication? This reminds me furiously of the wireless bicycle odometer idiocy, whereby a transmitter is used to transmit wheel rotation signals a couple of feet up to the odometer proper, using two batteries instead of one, and making the entire thing more expensive, less reliable and more prone to signal jamming, just for the sake of not running a 2-ft cable up a brake cable.

    If they're going to implant devices in someone's organism, they should just run wires under the skin: bio-compatible materials exist that wires can be made of (heck, they're already implanting the devices anyway), they'll get better throughput and latency, the devices will require less power, will be less complicated, and more importantly, will be immune to outside signals.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Why wireless by DrgnDancer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, I mean I could be an idiot here ( I'm definitely no doctor and my knowledge here is quite limited), but doesn't that make the surgery much more complex and invasive? I mean, with wireless you're basically implanting one or two radio receiver/transmitters (One in the case of a robotic limb which will have it own r/t technically "outside" the body, two if they're trying to bypass nerve damage). That's pretty straightforward work. One incision, install the r/t, sew it up. With implanted wires you're going to have to make long, fairly deep, incisions all down the path between the two wired r/t devices, no? That's a lot of extra pain for the patient, a lot of additional sites for infection, a lot longer surgery, etc. Plus what do you do if the cable breaks? Rip it all out and start over? You can usually repair cable, but at least outside the body it's rarely as strong as it was originally.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    2. Re:Why wireless by JoeMerchant · · Score: 2

      Wires in the body are bad. Very bad when you get an MRI. The problem with wireless is that it takes batteries to make it go, batteries wear out, wireless communication makes batteries wear out faster. Most implantables only use wireless for brief, occasional communication. The surgery required to replace batteries (which, to the glee of the CEOs, always means replacing the entire implant), is risky and inconvenient. So, unless an implant can be sited directly on the structure(s) it wants to electrically stimulate/sense, it will have wires. They're supposed to ask you about your implants before you get an MRI. With the millions of MRIs given every year, mistakes are made. On rare occasions, the tips of the implanted wires get hot, tissue damaging hot. Unfortunately, the most common place for an implanted wire tip to be located is on the heart... the victims don't usually die, right away, although some do need to get their pacing lead re-sited. ("right away" is a joke, everybody dies eventually.)

    3. Re:Why wireless by JoeMerchant · · Score: 2

      bio-compatible materials exist that wires can be made of

      Bio-compatible implantable wires are a good deal more complex, failure prone, and expensive than a titanium can. The wires need to stretch with the body and be fully insulated. Stainless steel coils inside silicon sheaths are used - it's not as simple or robust as the 18 gauge romex in your house. The junction from wire to implant can is also a problem that you can't solve with wire-nuts.

  5. Wireless? No thanks by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

    I'd prefer wired or optical wherever possible. Wireless could be OK for some things, like implant status monitoring or emergency diagnostics / manual override (using strong authentication of course). For something important like linking a prosthetic limb to your spine? Bad idea, too easy to jam, and the completely unnecessary potential for black hats to impersonate the control signal is not a good thing.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel