Slashdot Mirror
Carmakers Oppose Opening Up 5GHZ Spectrum Space For Unlicensed Wi-Fi
s122604 writes "Automakers aren't too happy about a recent U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposal, which uses part of the wireless spectrum assigned to vehicle-to-vehicle technology for Wi-Fi instead. The FCC announced that it plans to free up 195 MHz of spectrum in the 5 GHz band for unlicensed use in an effort to address the U.S.' spectrum crisis. This could potentially lead to Wi-Fi speeds faster than 1 gigabit per second."
Rootkits arent something that enable you to hack, and thats not how hacking works. Wireless systems can be made secure, you know, and we actually have a pretty good handle on it.
My router at home does N speeds of 300 megs and is attached to 16 meg cable, Do I really NEED to connect to my router at over 1 gig speeds if the cable modem it's connected to is still linked to the same half arsed, capped cable?
You don't own that spectrum. Corporations own that spectrum. Right now, lobbyists from the electronics industry are paying / bribing / offering more to the regulators than the car manufacturers are prepared to meet. Just like the commercial broadcast spectrum segments -- AM and FM radio, television -- of which you get to use precisely zero, this isn't about you -- it's about the manufacturers of devices that will use that spectrum.
The FCC's spectrum allocation arm allocates so little of the available spectrum to the public, and in particular, easily usable spectrum, that it is fairly painful to contemplate. The only people with a public voice are those with extremely deep pockets, and that's no accident.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
and why would anyone want this? you do realize the rather large corporate/government monkey that will come with this, right?
Then you may need more speed. Your N gets you more like 100mbps effective data rate (test it some time) since the WiFi speeds are displayed raw and there's a lot of overhead. Now that is 100mbps shared among all devices. So, if you connect to your router and it to a wired computer, no problem full bandwidth. However if you connect to another computer on WiFi, oh look, you guys are sharing. Have a bunch of computers on all accessing, that bandwidth starts to get spread thin.
If all you do is one computer to the Internet, then you are fine, for now at least. Otherwise? Yes, more bandwidth is good.
I'm one of those pinko liberal democrats. But where electromagnetic spectrum is concerned, I'm as mercenary as they come.
If car makers want spectrum, they can buy it just like everybody else. The FCC should put the entire radio spectrum up for sale to the highest bidder on a rotating 10-year cycle, nothing exempt except for a few bands set aside for emergency services, military, and scientific use.
FM radio, TV, taxicabs, ham radio, I don't care: if you want exclusive use of a slice of spectrum, you form a coalition of like-minded people willing to pay for it. If somebody else wants to pay more, go find a better business model.
Weird cos most mikrotik (and ubiquiti) gear should be able to use it with nothing but a firmware patch (actually no need to use a firmware patch just tick the box to disable regulatory restrictions but you run the risk of using other channels that aren't freed up yet)
Or you could learn to drive in fog and not out drive your vision.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Might I point out that WinXP was "generally acknowledged to be secure"? Actually, it was pretty secure, compared to what we had been used to prior to WinXP. WinXP SP3 improves a great deal over WinXP, and Win7 improved even more - which only helps to demonstrate that "security" is a moving target. "Generally acknowledged" means squat.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
But..but..Job Creators!
They oppose the public having any access to the spectrum for the same reason all the major corporate entities don't want you to have access to any nice things without they get get a nickel in they pocket for it.
They let the internet get away from them and they vowed to never let it happen again. In their minds, the internet should have been cable television on steroids, not some big open bazaar where people can post blogs calling them assholes. They got caught with their pants down on that one, and they'll be damned if they're going to let it happen again.
Oh, and eternal copyright. Because they can.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Uh, no. It's the public's spectrum. The FCC runs it for us, and leases it out to corporations, WHO PAY US for the right to use it.
A landlord might lease out a room, and under the terms of that lease may not be allowed to enter the room unannounced any more, but that doesn't mean the landlord is no longer the owner.
> so long as it plays nicely with others
Ah, that's the rub, though. You'd still need some regulation and certified, per-manufactured units that were sealed against tampering. If you're suggesting that we just throw a giant chunk of spectrum out for people to do with as they please, it will be unusable within a year or two from all the interference. Even worse, it will be interfering with other services, including some of MY licensed ones. :)
Naturally, I object to that.
You want some math? Bozo The Redneck has a 5GHz unit that he has "improved." To get away from all of his neighbors' emissions, he found a little screw inside that would lower his frequency to 4.5GHz. Hey, there wasn't anyone else there! He then discovered that it would "put out more better" if he removed that silver can on the output (i.e., the filter). Harmonics are simply multiples of the fundamental frequency, so now he's radiating junk at 9GHz, 13.5GHz, and 18GHz. This doesn't even include the *spurious* products that he's generating at heaven-only-knows what frequencies, because he also goosed the power, so now the amplifier is clipping like mad. :)
That's when I perk up and take notice, because I have a licensed Dragonwave link at 18GHz that we absolutely depend on. It ferries (via audio-over-IP, as well as one T1-over-IP that was a BEAST to set up, but that's a separate story!) several signals for our radio stations, as well as telemetry and video monitoring (to watch for the @#$@#$ copper thieves). We kind of depend on that thing, y'know?
And if you think that's an unlikely scenario, think back to the CB craze of the late 70's. Most truck stops sold linear amplifiers. Highly illegal, but that didn't stop people from buying them. Better yet, the bozos had no idea how to tune them, so they radiated trash and harmonics that absolutely destroyed TV reception in rural areas, where people had to depend on over-the-air antennas -- i.e., the very areas that were most likely to have rednecks running "LEE-nyers." It was a very real problem, and the FCC (the CB's called him "uncle Charlie") was constantly running around, busting people for running these pieces of junk.
Just turning frequencies over to the public sounds like a good idea, but most people don't know what they're doing. As someone who loves Open Source and Open Standards and all that, it grieves me to say it, but in this particular case, you'd better have some oversight and control.
If you don't, the end result is going to be that everyone interferes with everyone else and NO ONE will be able to communicate. Read up on the history of the FCC sometime: it was actually created (at least in part) at the request of *broadcasters,* who were sick and tired of constant interference, scrambling for "open" frequencies and no real limits on operation.
Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
The problem with this article is people have no idea why the car manufacturers are upset, all they see is some big corporation opposing the release of more unlicensed public spectrum (and some sensationalist WIFI BS by bloggers). Or course this draws out the communists among us that want all corporations to go away.
This all fails to miss the entire point of why the Auto companies are opposing this. This spectrum is directly adjacent to spectrum allocated for intercar communication. What is intercar communication? It's spectrum that was allocated a number of years ago to allow direct communication between vehicles. What is the point of that? Well one of the key aspects of this spectrum is that without it you don't have reliable inter-car communication which will greatly hamper self driving cars.
See, if you are going to have self driving cars those cars need to be able to communicate with each other, they need to tell the cars around them that they need to change lanes, or that they are breaking. The holy grail of self driving cars is a situation where cars are driving 70MPH with about 2 feet between them. This will greatly increase the density of cars and allow the freeways to operate about 200% more efficiently than now. But for that all to work that cars have to tell each other what they are doing so the other vehicles can react. Even with no perception-reaction time for computers you will greatly decrease the possible efficiency if the cars can't communicate real time. The only way to make this safe is dedicated spectrum with low interference.
If we have thousands of WIFI signals in adjacent spectrum there will be so much interference that the systems won't be reliable, the result will either be safety problems or drastically reduced efficiency. Self driving cars are a holy grail of ITS (intelligent transportation systems) that has been being pursued since the early 90's. It will result in freeways that are so much more efficient than today that you could fit 3-4 times the number of cars in the same freeway without any slow downs or rush hour traffic jams. Not only that but you could read a book while driving to work.
We don't want to impede or endanger self driving cars. The car manufacturers concerns about interference need to be taken seriously.
They want to implement their harebrained scheme, where cars communicate with each other to facilitate self driving cars in the future. Computers on the net, controlling cars is one of the most crazy ideas that anybody has come up with lately. Instead of hackers and criminals crashing computers only, they will crash car computers which will crash cars injuring and possibly killing people. If Microsoft has anything to say about this, they will insist that such vehicles run Windows.
Has there ever been a “secure” computer system? If a computer is on the net, it can be accessed and compromised, if there is an incentive to do so. I can just imagine some enterprising kid turning off the engines of vehicles traveling down the highway going past his house. Suddenly jamming on the brakes or running them off the road should be kinda fun also. If computer controlled cars should become the norm, I will have to drive my now 7-year-old car until the wheels fall off. I certainly won't buy such a hackable contraption.
A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
> We've done that with 2.4 and 5 GHz, and it didn't work out the way you describe
Heh. You have obviously never used wireless in an apartment complex, or in a large building with several businesses, or even in a hotel "cluster" on the Interstate where dozens of different access points are fighting with one another for attention.
Our first data link, installed several years ago, was an unlicensed Motorola Canopy. Highly directional, 2.4GHz, worked like a charm ... until the folks who lived in the apartment complex right between our studios and transmitter site all bought Linksys and DLink access points. Not only were they arguing with each other about channels, they rendered that Motorola useless.
Fine; it was unlicensed. We couldn't complain. We knew the risk when we bought it.
But that's why we upgraded to the Dragonwave with a license. If anyone interferes with that, we can take positive action with the FCC to get them shut down or fixed.
Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.