FCC Boosts Spectrum Available To Wi-Fi

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Boosts Spectrum Available To Wi-Fi

Posted by samzenpus on Monday March 31, 2014 @10:14AM from the greased-lightning dept.

bbsguru (586178) writes "Wi-Fi networks will soon be improving thanks to a vote by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) today. The FCC voted unanimously to open 100 MHz of wireless spectrum in an unlicensed 5GHz block . The move will increase the number of frequencies available to unlicensed wireless networks (such as those set up through Wi-Fi routers) by nearly 15 percent, and in turn, allow them to handle a greater level of traffic at higher speeds. 'Today's action represents the largest amount of spectrum suitable for mobile broadband that the Commission has made available for auction since the 700MHz band was auctioned in 2008,' the FCC wrote in a statement. 'Access to these bands will help wireless companies meet growing consumer demand for mobile data by enabling faster wireless speeds and more capacity.' The increased spectrum should mean that Wi-Fi networks will be less congested, and next-gen routers will be able to take better advantage of gigabit broadband speeds that are cropping up all over the country."

73 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Spectrum Frequency by Goetterdaemmerung · 2014-03-31 10:22 · Score: 5, Informative

The newly available spectrum is 5150-5250 MHz.
1. Re:Spectrum Frequency by msauve · 2014-03-31 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for that, since neither of the linked articles bothered to provide any meaningful details, just "this is more better!"
  
  One of them implied that this was somehow provided for outdoor ISP use - any clarification on that? Is this available for everyone indoors, but limited when used outdoors, or ???
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
2. Re:Spectrum Frequency by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 11:17 · Score: 0
  
  I wonder how much more does that actually gives us.
  Channels 36,40,44,48 are already allowed. I guess this gives us channel 32
3. Re:Spectrum Frequency by beheaderaswp · 2014-03-31 11:23 · Score: 2
  
  As long as they stay out of the Amateur microwave bands... they can have all they want (self interest).
  However, this release of spectrum is not nearly enough to mitigate the problems found in urban areas. The bands need to be widened a lot more.
  
  --
  Another consultant who stuck it out.
  
  "We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
4. Re:Spectrum Frequency by Lumpy · 2014-03-31 11:28 · Score: 0
  
  I just wish they would get off their butts and figure out how to compress the data better so they can be more narrowband in the existing spectrum.
  Honestly, Wifi is allowed to be awfully wasteful with the bandwidth it has.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
5. Re:Spectrum Frequency by Electricity+Likes+Me · 2014-03-31 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  Compressing the H264 most people are pulling down over it? Not going to happen. Unless you mean upping the symbol rate (think that's the right term) for more efficient coding. In which case, well, we're still being pretty damn efficient.
6. Re:Spectrum Frequency by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 12:11 · Score: 0
  
  5150-5250 is channels 34-48, many of which are already available and is use
  David Lang
7. Re:Spectrum Frequency by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure how you can say wifi is "awfully wasteful" with a straight face. Ignoring MIMO (which can double or triple the spectral efficiency), 802.11n achieves 3.61 bits/second/Hz which is right on par with other consumer wireless standards. The real-world efficiency is lower due to packet overheads and SNR, but that's going to be the case with any standard you settle on. Is there room for improvement? Certainly. 802.11ac will use bandwidth even more efficiently than 'n', though because people care more about throughput gains are going to go to improving speed rather than reducing its spectrum usage.
8. Re:Spectrum Frequency by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 12:38 · Score: 0
  
  I just wish they would get off their butts and figure out how to compress the data better so they can be more narrowband in the existing spectrum.
  Honestly, Wifi is allowed to be awfully wasteful with the bandwidth it has.
  Honestly, I wish people who sit on their butts and make stupid statements like this would STFU. Do some research on OFDM and QAM and you will see how ridiculous you sound regarding spectral efficiency. If you mean wasteful with regards to content (pictures of kittens etc), then I agree.
9. Re:Spectrum Frequency by RoadKill · 2014-03-31 12:39 · Score: 2
  
  Why is this touted as "newly available"? This is not new spectrum, just loosened restrictions on usage. The FCC notice on their web site says that a restriction was removed on indoor use only and increased power is available. I just checked and my consumer-grade wifi router is using 5200MHz right now.
10. Re:Spectrum Frequency by timeOday · 2014-03-31 13:03 · Score: 2
  
  I'm not sure how you can say wifi is "awfully wasteful" with a straight face. Ignoring MIMO (which can double or triple the spectral efficiency), 802.11n achieves 3.61 bits/second/Hz which is right on par with other consumer wireless standards.
  
  N is new and good. So the only way to do what the GP suggests is forcing older, less efficient devices off the air. "Cash for clunker APs!" or something. I'm not saying whether that's a great idea - but this new spectrum allocation adds 15%, whereas 802.11b is up to 100 times slower than ac.
11. Re:Spectrum Frequency by morgauxo · 2014-03-31 13:25 · Score: 1
  
  That's the first thing I was looking for too, I wanted to see the frequency range to see if it was an amateur band. This time it isn't (thankfully?). On the other hand, how much activity is there on the microwave amateur bands? Maybe sharing it (with the part 15 services on a secondary basis) would make it less attractive to comercial interests that might take away our access completely? I don't know. Just a thought.
12. Re:Spectrum Frequency by morgauxo · 2014-03-31 13:27 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't increasing the symbol rate also increase the bandwidth used? Or are you sugesting a different kind of modulation too? In that case isn't it the different modulation that is saving the bandwidth, not the increasing of the symbol rate?
13. Re:Spectrum Frequency by morgauxo · 2014-03-31 13:31 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Personally my favorite way to increase efficiency has been around a long time... ETHERNET!! Don't get me wrong, I use WiFi for things that NEED WiFi (ChromeCast, laptops carried to strange places, visiting friends that want to use their Sprint (shitty network) smartphones, etc...). But.. for stationary things that can do ethernet... it's no contest, ethernet for the win!! With a little creativity you CAN find a place to run the cable and it IS worth it!
14. Re:Spectrum Frequency by surd1618 · 2014-03-31 14:17 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing (that we know of) short of utilizing polarization (which is basically impossible) is going to much increase the data transmitted across a given spectrum. Can someone put this in information-theory-ese?
15. Re:Spectrum Frequency by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 14:57 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Yes.
  What the GP probably means is increasing the constellation size. But increasing the constellation size requires a better SNR in the channel, which typically means increasing power, for example, to go from QAM256 to QAM1024, (8 bits/symbols to 10bits/symbol) requires 3dB better SNR, which in turn means doubling the transmit power, or somehow reducing the channel noise floor, for example, by using higher gain receive side antenna, or a lower noise detector.
  Of course, the best advance we have made is MIMO, which is a form of spatial division multiplexing, allowing encoding symbols in space as well as amplitude. Technically it is a partially correlated matrix encoding.
16. Re:Spectrum Frequency by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 15:42 · Score: 0
  
  This is not what everyone wishes it was.
  The U-NII 1 band (5.15-5.25 GHz) has been available for WiFi use for years. See the frequencies for WiFi channels 36, 40, 44, and 48. But, those channels were limited to *indoor* use only, and had very low power output limits.
  This FCC rule changes open up these frequencies for *outdoor* use. As a result, this is of major interest to Wireless ISPs, but will have minimal impact on how most of us use WiFi day-to-day.
17. Re:Spectrum Frequency by EmagGeek · 2014-03-31 22:44 · Score: 1
  
  Ham radio is already non-primary on 5GHz. In fact it is tertiary use on 5.15-5.25. There are two other services that take priority. Amateur is also secondary on every other 5GHz allocation it has.
18. Re:Spectrum Frequency by Phreakiture · 2014-03-31 23:19 · Score: 1
  
  MIMO is a great technology, but it has two problems.
  First is that there is a lot of equipment that is too small to implement MIMO (think phones, iPods and other, similarly-sized devices) because there is not enough room to put the requisite multiple antennas in place at a sufficient distance from each other to do the job. This may be curable with another advance in technology, but we don't have this one yet.
  Second is the large amount of equipment in which it just isn't being implemented. Look at the shelves of a store (or pages of a webstore) and you will find a gajillion "N150" routers and cards. Naturally, these are the ones with the lowest prices on them, and therefore are the ones that get bought. Band congestion takes that 150 and turns it into a 36 or so, where if you had bought an "N300" or "N600" you might see 72 or 144 respectively.
  Of course, this is less of a problem on 5 GHz because there is more spectrum, no channel overlap (unless you bonded your channels) and the signals don't carry as far.
  
  --
  www.wavefront-av.com
19. Re:Spectrum Frequency by AmiMoJo · 2014-03-31 23:30 · Score: 2
  
  Fortunately 802.11b doesn't support 5GHz so there is no chance of it slowing down devices operating in that band. 802.11a is pretty rare.
  Hopefully 802.11n was designed well enough to not screw up faster protocols as they become available. I get good speed from 802.11ac but there are no other APs on those channels near me.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
20. Re:Spectrum Frequency by AmiMoJo · 2014-03-31 23:34 · Score: 1
  
  2.4GHz is so bad where I live that even opening web pages on 2.4GHz often fails. Ethernet isn't an option for tablets and phones (okay, USB dongles exist, but no).
  I used to periodically clear 2.4GHz channels for my own use by encouraging other APs to switch away. These days all channels are so bad that spamming one doesn't make it that much worse than the others and the auto-channel-selection code doesn't seem to bother changing any more. I have to put everything I want to use on 5GHz.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
21. Re:Spectrum Frequency by Anonymous Coward · 2014-04-01 00:05 · Score: 0
  
  In those instances I play hell with the neighbors. a OpenWRT router that spres out hundreds of AP's named "linksys" "dlink" etc... so it screws badly with the people that cant configure their gear. Within a year channel 1 is clear of everything but me. so I shut it down and put my stuff on that channel. Ahhh room to breathe...
22. Re:Spectrum Frequency by eclectro · 2014-04-01 00:20 · Score: 1
  
  So they didn't whack ham radio for this? I'm really glad they did not. I have not been able to follow it as much as I would like.
  
  --
  Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
23. Re:Spectrum Frequency by Larry_Dillon · 2014-04-01 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  "...requires 3dB better SNR, which in turn means doubling the transmit power..."
  Or using better antennas.
  
  --
  Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
24. Re:Spectrum Frequency by Anonymous Coward · 2014-04-01 02:40 · Score: 0
  
  11n cards don't actually do beam-forming on transmit, so no "encoding symbols in space as well as amplitude" is actually happening. The so-called MIMO is just a 16-way receive diversity made from mixing the 3 antenna inputs in various ways. It's pretty dumb technology.
25. Re:Spectrum Frequency by Anonymous Coward · 2014-04-01 02:45 · Score: 0
  
  You only need 2 or 3 megabits for H264, so if you are having problems watching video, that is a sign the band is already so trashed I am not sure using these double- and triple-wide channels with insane theoretical data rates is going to help anything. In fact, if you and all your neighbors used much narrower channels or more coding gain, and only aimed for 10Mbit/s, that might make the video work. If video's not working, you're probably limited by TCP cubic because of the crazy amounts of loss from radio interference you're seeing, or perhaps from your station even losing its association for a few seconds at a time.
26. Re:Spectrum Frequency by Anonymous Coward · 2014-04-01 12:01 · Score: 0
  
  IMHO not true, the HAM traffic on 2m/70cm is not very useful in my eyes for real experimentation. a VHF/UHF transceiver is trivial to operate and relatively easy to design. It is also more or less a dead end for research. The higher microwave bands have a lot of bandwidth, and you will not piss off 'wacker cops' with your test transmissions. They allow effective experimentation with modern modulation and coding schemes.
  Of course, since some expertise is required to use the microwave frequencies these bands are almost completely quiet (you will almost certainly not be able to make a QSO without asking a friend to come on-air and aim his dish at you). Therefore sharing space with ISM would not be a problem at all.
  Almost all ISM products listen if the channel is free before transmitting. Furthermore they almost all transmit in bursts making interference minimal. They do transmit relatively broadband, but typically with low power and outdoor links often have directional antennas.
27. Re:Spectrum Frequency by Anonymous Coward · 2014-04-01 12:07 · Score: 0
  
  Many chipsets will actually happily do 802.11b on 5GHz if they detect an access point running in that mode.
28. Re:Spectrum Frequency by Anonymous Coward · 2014-04-01 12:14 · Score: 0
  
  No you are completely wrong.
  802.11n has several modes that do make use of MIMO on the transmit side. STBC transmit one datastream over two antennas (extensions to >2 antennas exist, but are not standardized). Other modes split the datastream into n separate streams that are independently broadcast via n antennas. Transmit beamforming is (AFAIK) very seldomly done, only if you are transmitting single stream, without stbc, with a device with more than one antenna, and even then most chipsets don't support it and simply only use one of the antennas.
  Most N cards will do something like receive beamforming when receiving an 802.11a signal. Since they have to have 2 (or more) full frontends for MIMO they will do maximum ratio combining on the OFDM subcarriers. This will yield some bit error rate improvement, but not that spectacular. It's something you get for free though with the MIMO receiver so why not.
  In n mode they ofcourse use full multi-stream MIMO or STBC.
29. Re:Spectrum Frequency by Anonymous Coward · 2014-04-01 12:20 · Score: 0
  
  Using polarization is not impossible. Simply take a normal MIMO transceiver, attach a horizontal polarized antenna to port A and a vertical one to port B. Wether you gain or loose compared to just two horizontal or two vertical antennas will depend on the layout of your room, the location of objects in it, etc.
30. Re:Spectrum Frequency by Anonymous Coward · 2014-04-01 13:28 · Score: 0
  
  Uh. I have plenty of dual-chain 5km+ wifi radio links that use dual-polarisation. "which is basically impossible" hardly, it's a standard shipping feature from Mikrotik, Ubiquity, etc.
  And infact you can get more channels through the same air using spatially diversified coherent receivers aka: MIMO. This comes from the fact that you can coherently downconvert the signal from multiple antennas, sample to IQ pairs, and arithmetically separate the multiple signals appearing at the antennas. This is basically the same as how you can hear sounds from multiple points with your two ears.
  Additionally all wifi packets begin with a known preamble, from this it is possible with multiple antennas to decode the start of an interfering packet, regenerate it, subtract it from the signal, recover part of another packet, use that to resolve more of the first packet, then use that to resolve more of the second packet. This is called Zigzag decoding and has been experimentally demonstrated in 2008. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that it is integrated into the 802.11ac standard, though I haven't read it yet.
31. Re:Spectrum Frequency by Anonymous Coward · 2014-04-02 11:51 · Score: 0
  
  Just yesterday being closer to the window and playing around I noticed one or two WEP APs in my list of around 20 in this side of the New York building. I didn't notice if it was B, but it is still saddening to see G-only APs being sold this year, to burden people for the better part of half a decade when all new ones will be Dual band N.
  That is one reason phones still dare come with G only wifi or N on the 2.4 band. I've owned a high end router for
  - 6.5 years, and STILL can't freely use
  - 5 ghz band on my 2 year old $800 laptop
  IPv6 on the DSL connection. Verizon brags about progress and all, but it's only on their FIOS tier. They're 5 blocks away from here and can't give me more than 3Mbit down either. Tech in the States is so stiffling...
32. Re:Spectrum Frequency by Anonymous Coward · 2014-04-09 08:25 · Score: 0
  
  "Ethernet isn't an option for tablets and phones..."
  Yes, that's why I had that "I use WiFi for things that NEED WiFi" bit in there. All the desktop computers, internet enabled DVD players, printers, game consoles, etc... in our house have wired Ethernet. Even the ones that have built in WiFi capability. The internal WiFi is turned off. We also have a spare Ethernet cord that ends next to the couch for laptop use. (usually my wife doing her homework) Our phones have unlimited data and seem to get as good or better service than the fastest our cable provider provides. Plus there is a cap on our cable modem (not that we hit it). So.. wifi for the phones is really only for friends with crappy Sprint cellphone service that want to show everyone some funny video or something on their phone when they come over. Sometimes I connect mine to the wifi if I want to access something that is only available on the LAN but as soon as I can get VPN working I'll be done with that.
  Unfortunately Chromecast does not play nice with this setup!
Ever watch all the collisions? by BrendaEM · 2014-03-31 10:23 · Score: 1

WiFi was a huge success. We do need more channels, and bandwidth for growth.

--
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
And thus starts the lamest day of the year by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 10:24 · Score: 0

I'm going offline for 24 hours to let the barrage of poor jokes wash over. This is April Fools, isn't it?
100mhz is a lot? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 10:28 · Score: 0

What's the cost of developing and deploying a new incremental 5ghz band improvement for a $50 router? What's the max theoretical speed improvement?
I don't see this selling like hotcakes unless they bundle it with some *actually secure* WEP variant, as seen on TV being endorsed by Charlie Miller.
1. Re:100mhz is a lot? by by+(1706743) · 2014-03-31 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  What's the max theoretical speed improvement?
  Here's a good article on (I believe) the relevant speed increase: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
  
  That said, I've never taken any signal processing classes so I could be pointing you in the wrong direction.
2. Re:100mhz is a lot? by bobbied · 2014-03-31 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  What's the max theoretical speed improvement?
  Theoretically, you can get just about any speed down a specific spectrum size you want. All you need to do is keep the SNR high enough and use a multiple bits per encoding. But, there are practical limits, especially in situations where you have power limits and congested bandwidth.
  They are adding something like 100Mhz by what I'm reading. I think that, all other things being equal, there will be zero increase in maximum speed. You might see a decreased congestion issue and raise average throughput, but the flood of new devices will all but soak up any spectrum gains we might see. Not that this isn't a step in the right direction...
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:Wireless or Wi-Fi? by sexconker · 2014-03-31 10:40 · Score: 1

The subject says Wi-Fi, then the article mentions wireless and also the 700 MHz auction (basically old tv channels 51 to 83 although they also banned channel 50 so it wouldn't interfere with channel 51). The 700 MHz band went to wireless phones, not Wi-Fi. Also, 'wireless' means phones, and Wi-Fi means devices connected to the internet for free. These things are *NOT* the same. Where I live, people can now 'stream' tv channels to their phones and other wireless devices via the 700 MHz spectrum for a data fee to their cell provider, instead of getting that yukky old TV (now in HD digital) for free ---not wireless but over the air--- for free. Said one phone user: "Its so much better to have to pay for Digital TV rather than receive it for free, I love my phone bill! Its so much better to get tv wireless, rather than over the air! Nobody likes free!"
I don't think you understand what the word wireless means.
This allows 100 MHz of additional spectrum to be used for WiFi. WiFi is a wireless communications standard. It has nothing to do with cell phones. It has nothing to do with 700 MHz band - that was only mentioned because it's the most notable release of spectrum in recent history with regards to consumer impact.
Re:Wireless or Wi-Fi? by AK+Marc · 2014-03-31 10:42 · Score: 1

Wi-Fi means devices connected to the internet for free.
So my WiFi on my home router isn't WiFi because I pay for my own Internet connection? I think the A/C got confused.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Stop auctioning spectrum to the highest bidder... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 10:57 · Score: 0

...and start allocating it in the public interest.
Re:Wireless or Wi-Fi? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 10:58 · Score: 0

Woosh.
Aren't most wireless networks still on 2.4Ghz? by Firethorn · 2014-03-31 10:59 · Score: 1

My thought on reading the above was more along the lines that we could really, really use more channels in the 2.4Ghz area. I've never seen an area saturated with 5Ghz signals, and it still takes fairly intensive shopping to find wireless devices and equipment that are capable of 5Ghz operation at all.
I mean, last time I helped somebody set up wireless in a dormatory it was last year and a cursory scan revealed 22 2.4Ghz wireless networks within range of my phone to ID them, and ONE 5Ghz. Of course, said coworker ended up on the least congested band I could find - (channel 9 if I remember right), because his router wasn't capable of 5Ghz. I also have to keep the 2.4Ghz channel on for my router because finding a tablet that's both affordable and capable of 5Ghz didn't work out when I bought it.
Honestly, a networking standard that goes a step beyond 802.11n like 802.11ac that actually mandates operation at 5Ghz was necessary to force companies to make the switch, though I imagine many/most companies will just stick to 2.4Ghz only 'N' as long as they can, much like it's still easy to end up with a 'G' only device even today.

--
I don't read AC A human right
1. Re:Aren't most wireless networks still on 2.4Ghz? by rasmusbr · 2014-03-31 11:13 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  One reason why you've never seen an area saturated with 5 GHz signals is that they don't penetrate walls and other obstacles as easily as 2.4 GHz signals. This is either good or bad depending on what you want to achieve, but having more spectrum is never bad!
2. Re:Aren't most wireless networks still on 2.4Ghz? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 11:13 · Score: 0
  
  If 5 GHz actually penetrated things decently, people might use it. I haven't seen any useful scenario for 5 GHz that was of such a range that running gigabit ethernet between the points wasn't a better option.
3. Re:Aren't most wireless networks still on 2.4Ghz? by cbhacking · 2014-03-31 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  Sadly, my phone and tablet do not have Gig-E ports (I could add one to the tablet via dongle, but eww). My friend's phones don't either. My laptop does, as do the laptops of most (though not all) of my friends, but that's really inconvenient to set up when they come over.
  My desktop and my roommate's desktop are wired, as is my Xbox. Nothing else is both sufficiently out-of-the-way and non-portable that it makes sense to wire it in, especially in an apartment where nearly all areas are easily served by a single central router even at 5GHz.
  
  --
  There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
4. Re:Aren't most wireless networks still on 2.4Ghz? by skids · 2014-03-31 14:12 · Score: 1
  
  You don't have to have an especially powerful signal to be able to see other devices. The occasional lucky packet will bounce around "just right" and leak through enough to see the device. So if GP said he didn't see many devices, it's because there just plain weren't many devices.
  That said, even with the cheap vendors not putting dual-band in their crap devices, we're seeing a good number of devices in our dorms that are 5GHz capable. Enough to improve life significantly for everyone still stuck on 2.4GHz. Unfortunately many of them are Apples and they manage to turn this advantage into a liability because their drivers stick their heads up their own asses the minute they find AP using the same SSID on both 2.4 and 5, so they spend most of their time roaming between APs every two or three minutes and torturing their users with bad performance during roams. Supposedly OSX 10.9.2 helps undo some of this damage.
  
  --
  Someone had to do it.
5. Re:Aren't most wireless networks still on 2.4Ghz? by evilviper · 2014-03-31 16:22 · Score: 1
  
  One reason why you've never seen an area saturated with 5 GHz signals is that they don't penetrate walls and other obstacles as easily as 2.4 GHz signals.
  The difference certainly exists, but it is actually very small, and this element gets horribly overblown.
  Most people don't really use WiFi signals going through their walls and floors, anyhow (thin, interior doors notwithstanding). Instead, they use the diffraction down corridors, through windows, etc., and both frequencies can easily manage that...
  I've done side-by-side comparisons of 2.4GHz and 5GHz, and the latter only has a very tiny reduction in range, in all but extreme scenarios.
  The FCC should just allow a 20% increase in transmit power on the 5GHz band, and suddenly 5GHz (with more available channels) would be much more desirable than 2.4GHz. Then manufacturers will start defaulting to do, and the band would open up for those stuck on it for legacy reasons.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
6. Re:Aren't most wireless networks still on 2.4Ghz? by rasmusbr · 2014-03-31 22:29 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I guess the idea behind making 5GHz routers is that higher frequencies will give you better data rates all other things being equal if you are in a typical office environment where there aren't a lot of thick walls.
  The really interesting thing would be to do a test where you'd switch all the routers in an office building (or apartment block) from 2.4 to 5 GHz and look at the effect on interference. You could probably predict it pretty well by measuring how two adjacent routers in adjacent offices or apartments interfere with one another. In other words: router v.s. concrete wall or concrete floor. Did you test anything like that?
7. Re:Aren't most wireless networks still on 2.4Ghz? by deadweight · 2014-04-01 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  I am going to call BS on this. My access point does both and once you get beyond about 2 walls worth of penatration the 5 GHz signal is notably down from the 2.4 GHz.
8. Re:Aren't most wireless networks still on 2.4Ghz? by evilviper · 2014-04-01 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  Your first line is nonsense... A given bandwidth (eg. 6MHz channel) will give you the same throughput, whether it's at 700Mhz or 50GHz. People see higher frequencies as faster, only because there's usually a lot more bandwidth available at higher frequencies, in part because pentration is lower and reuse is higher.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
9. Re:Aren't most wireless networks still on 2.4Ghz? by evilviper · 2014-04-01 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  Arguing out of ignorance and anecdotes is never a good idea...
  Go look up a chart or other hard numbers on the penetration of various frequencies in whatever wall material, and get back to us...
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
10. Re:Aren't most wireless networks still on 2.4Ghz? by rasmusbr · 2014-04-01 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  Your first line is nonsense... A given bandwidth (eg. 6MHz channel) will give you the same throughput, whether it's at 700Mhz or 50GHz. People see higher frequencies as faster, only because there's usually a lot more bandwidth available at higher frequencies, in part because pentration is lower and reuse is higher.
  Well, there's more bandwidth at higher frequencies, relatively speaking, precisely because the frequencies are higher. For example between 100 and 110 MHz there is 10MHz of bandwidth. Between 1000 and 1100 MHz there is 100MHz of bandwidth. Between 5 and 5.5 GHz there is 500MHz of bandwidth.
  If we make a simplified assumtion as assume that we're going to regulate that a fixed percentage (say 10%) of bandwidth throughout the spectrum will be available for general public use then the vast majority of the bandwidth is going to be in the higher frequencies.
11. Re:Aren't most wireless networks still on 2.4Ghz? by evilviper · 2014-04-01 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  I fail to see how your word-games here are anything but arbitrary...
  
  For example between 100 and 110 MHz there is 10MHz of bandwidth. Between 1000 and 1100 MHz there is 100MHz of bandwidth.
  Yes, but you just picked a couple numbers arbitrarily, with no particular significance. Between 100 and 200MHz, there's 100MHz of bandwidth, just like 1000 to 1100MHz.
  
  Between 5 and 5.5 GHz there is 500MHz of bandwidth.
  And? The US TV broadcast band starts at 50MHz, and has several hundred MHz of bandwidth as well.
  
  If we make a simplified assumtion as assume that we're going to regulate that a fixed percentage (say 10%) of bandwidth throughout the spectrum will be available for general public use then the vast majority of the bandwidth is going to be in the higher frequencies.
  You're picking "higher" arbitrarily wherever you feel like...
  Since the spectrum starts at zero and continues on into infinity, 10% would be infinite, and the overwhelming majority of it would be in the 999trillion terahertz+ range. But I'm guessing that's not quite what you meant by "higher frequencies".
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
12. Re:Aren't most wireless networks still on 2.4Ghz? by rasmusbr · 2014-04-02 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  The spectrum is always limited by currently available technology.
  Since the spectrum at any given point in time is finite it's a limited resource that needs to be managed. A common sense principle would be to release some fixed fraction A of the currently technologically feasible spectrum for general short-range/low power use, with bands spread out fairly evenly all the way from the bottom end to the top end. Then the bandwidth of one of these bands will be roughly proportional to A*f where f is a frequency contained in the band.
  That means that in order to get faster WiFi in the future without increasing the fraction A we're going to need our f to be higher than 5GHz. We're probably going to end up somewhere in the 10GHz to 100GHz range.
We need more at 2.4ghz by Lumpy · 2014-03-31 11:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

Open up 5 more channels at the top end of the 2.4ghz.. They use them in the EU (and in my home.... bite me FCC) to give everyone a lot more room instead of suffering with the 3 useable ones we have here.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
1. Re:We need more at 2.4ghz by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 12:02 · Score: 0
  
  I'd really like everyone else to move to 5Ghz, so I can have 2.4Ghz all to my self. Then with some MIMO I can have range and throughput.
2. Re:We need more at 2.4ghz by bobbied · 2014-03-31 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  Only channel 14 and up is restricted by law. And if you are running part 15, I don't think anybody will care unless you are causing harmful interference and refuse to stop. But I think you will find more space in the 5 GHz band if you run a Japan setup.
  Chances are, if anybody cares and the FCC happens to drive by due to a complaint. They will either knock on your door, send you a letter or both and ask you to quit. They tend to try for voluntary compliance before they bring out the threatening letters and fines unless they figure you are doing it on purpose.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
3. Re:We need more at 2.4ghz by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 12:59 · Score: 0
  
  they used to have 700 i think set aside so the crackheads could feel special, what id really like to see is wifi gear that runs in the unlicensed 900mhz range (old cordless landline phones) you can bilk range and speed out of that one. i think motorola already does it with canopy.
4. Re:We need more at 2.4ghz by bobjr94 · 2014-03-31 13:43 · Score: 1
  
  They should have opened more channels 10 years ago and yes, they need more on the 2.4 band as well.
5. Re:We need more at 2.4ghz by AmiMoJo · 2014-03-31 23:36 · Score: 2
  
  Believe me, as someone who lives in Europe from time to time it won't really help. You will have a couple of years where old devices are not using those channels before they get saturated too.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
6. Re:We need more at 2.4ghz by Anonymous Coward · 2014-04-01 04:36 · Score: 0
  
  And the "bite me FCC" wouldn't construe willful intent.
Re:Wireless or Wi-Fi? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 11:27 · Score: 0

You are a bloody idiot.
Re:Wireless or Wi-Fi? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 11:29 · Score: 0

Is this the worst-written troll of the day, or the worst-written satire?
Sigh.
Wall penetration by Firethorn · 2014-03-31 11:34 · Score: 1

I know that 5Ghz doesn't penetrate walls as well as 2.4, but it still does and even 'bounces' better so it's a bit of a mix-up. Still, I know the penetration capability of 5Ghz from my home, so if it was at all common in my area*, I'd expect to see 5-6, even if at low signal strength.
As for more spectrum not being bad, I agree with you, which is why I tried to phrase it that extra channels at 2.4Ghz would be more useful than more at 5Ghz.
BTW, just did a quick check - only 20% of tablets sold at Newegg are capable of communicating with 5Ghz networks.
*I'm sure the Japanese are ahead of us, along with an number of other countries.

--
I don't read AC A human right
And more radiation ! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-31 12:17 · Score: 0

You forgot radiation.
23 years later and we get it! by flatulus · 2014-03-31 16:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'd like to take a moment to memorialize a pioneer in this pursuit that probably none of you ever heard of. The name is Jim Lovette. Jim worked with me at Apple in the early 90's. He was a heart-and-soul devotee to the democratization of RF bandwidth for high speed data communications. With Jim's leadership, Apple drafted a petition to the FCC, known as Data-PCS. This was a proposal to allocate spectrum in the U.S. exclusively for use in data communications (as opposed to "voice only" which was the vogue at the time). The Data-PCS petition caused a lot of excitement, but did not result in anything earthshaking as an outcome. Still it started a movement of which this latest step is a grand one in the pursuit of "computing devices talking to each other" being equally important to "people talking to each other." Jim (and our team) were also early promoters of wireless LAN, which we all know today as WiFi. The IEEE 802.11 committee had just formed. Apple's early foray into wireless LAN preceded the availability of IEEE 802.11 (aka WiFi) products, and never made it to market. Apple chose instead to introduce their first wireless LAN products as 802.11b (11 Mbit/sec) WiFi. And over 20 years later, look what it has become?
Jim passed away in 2002, leaving us with a legacy of which few outside the cloistered Wireless LAN industry would even know he contributed so much. Thank you, Jim.
Time for a Pedantic Rant by flatulus · 2014-03-31 16:52 · Score: 1

Wi-Fi is not a wireless communications standard. IEEE 802.11 is the wireless communications standard. Wi-Fi is a registered trademark of the Wi-Fi Alliance - and industry trade organization. They do publish interoperability agreements and offer "certification" (required to use their trademarks on products), but these should not be confused with the IEEE wireless communications standard.
(rant done - going back to reading now...)