Slashdot Mirror
FCC Proposal To Limit Access To 5725-5850 MHz Band
New submitter thittesd0375 (1111917) writes New rules adopted by the FCC will greatly limit the amount of bandwidth available in the unlicensed U-NII band used to deliver internet to rural areas. The filters required to comply with the new rules would shrink the available frequencies from 125MHz to only 45MHz. Petitions to reconsider this ruling can be submitted here and previous petitions can be found here.
Comcast? AT&T? Someone with deep pockets wants to restrict competition and availability.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
We can't have you proles using the available spectrum out in the boonies where no one else is using it.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
OP said:
> to deliver internet to rural areas
Article says:
> the Commission’s Enforcement Bureau found that certain models of devices certified for use in these bands were designed in a way that users were able
to disable the DFS mechanism. With the DFS mechanism inactive, the device could transmit on an active
radar channel and cause harmful interference.
and:
> Early field studies performed by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA’s) Institute for Telecommunications Sciences (ITS) and FAA staff indicated the interference sources were certain unlicensed U-NII devices that operated in the same frequency band as these Federal radar systems. This interference was occurring despite the Commission’s rules that require U-NII devices operating in this band to incorporate an interference mitigation technique called dynamic frequency selection (DFS).
Oh look, people buying illegal 1Watt emitters from China and attaching them to bigass antennae to "deliver internet in rural areas" on fixed channels without DFS when regulations strictly say "nope", now crying that they're being "stepped on".
gtfo.
They're trying to protect Terminal Doppler Weather Radar, they've added restrictions on the upper band but removed the indoor restrictions on the lower (5.2ghz) band. A fair tradeoff in the opinion of someone that used to work at a WISP.
Just because you disagree doesn't mean it's not true.
Can anyone cite within the document where this actually taking place? Looks as if the PTMP rules are still 1W at radio in upper 5 GHZ band. A google search yields nothing and ubnt forums usually are on top of this sort of stuff. It wouldn't surprise me as the FCC nuked the 3.65 band I paid $200+ for before getting to use it. Why not kill 5.7 - 5.8.
Looking for any changes to the PTP rules as well.
Don't like it around here, create your own news service that caters to your country.. I'm sure you can get 10 or 15 users. Don't worry, you wont be missed, coward.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
That doesn't travel very far, right? At least not with acceptable power. It's almost microwave!
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
What about industrial noise that can go up to 5875? Or even high-powered point-to-point radios that are authorized for use as ISM devices, not U-NII?
Hell, the 5cm HAM band is 5650-5925. Are they going to take that away too?
Yes, .org, not .us :)
Looks like the problem here is that most rural/farming users can't understand high-speed Internet, and don't buy what they can't understand. Therefore, it's just not worth dedicating the bandwidth to this project.
This spectrum was introduced in 1997 to augment the "last mile" cost for rural subscribers, particularly schools and libraries. It doesnt come with license fees and as such is widely used by private industry to provide internet access to paying customers who live in the middle of nowhere (many of whom dont even have cellular service.) the existing bandwidth peaks at a blistering 25mbit.
as an amateur radio enthusiast, U-NII band reform is a long time coming and private companies have a huge incentive to get you to oppose it. thittesd0375 doesnt say it, but these arent petitions you're filing either, they are official FCC proceedings and considered a complaint, which is very different than the change.org crap that shows up on slashdot one a month. holding on to this band plan and its users is an easy way for telecom companies to quietly interfere with projects that would actually help citizens like wimax and municipal gigabit/wireless. If you have any respect or concern for the people being screwed over for 25 megabit service initially intended for public education around the same time AOL was all the rage, you should probably avoid this slashdot article entirely.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Dear FCC,
I saw your alarming proposal on Slashdot. 45MHz of bandwidth is insufficient for downloads. Please reconsider.
Most of my 2.4 GHz links have been removed from service since the band is so crowded, that even with -50dBm signals the throughput was crap, but one is almost by themselves on 5.8 GHz (almost no 802.11a, a few TDMA stations, mostly AirMAX, around), and can get great throughput and reliability with weaker signals...If I were starting a WISP now, I would do only 5.8 GHz and 24 GHz links.
It's almost microwave!
As far as I'm concerned "microwave" is 2.4 gig. (And maybe lower, but your microwave oven operates around 2.4 gig.) 5 Gig is over twice that. How do you justify the word almost? Where do you think microwave starts???
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I looked at the petition, but all it says is:
Dear Federal Communications Commission:
Stop governmenting, you motherfuckers!
Support my political activism on Patreon.
My father in law is in a rural community. He has hundreds of acres of land and he has to use a wireless provider for internet. But he's also got dark fiber running up to his mailbox. After the cable was laid all over the county, nothing was done with it. How about taking the opportunity to push ISPs to light up that dark fiber for rural areas. If you have telephone service you should also have broadband capability.
The FAA could be doing the background on this for limiting the FPV 5.8 analog people use while flying. Although you can use 900 1.2 2.4 as well. The 5.8 is the most popular.
From another perspective one might wonder why these people feel they have to "buy illegal 1watt emitters"? The FCC should have several blocks of various frequency types (short range/High speed/low power, long range/lower speed/high power, interference resistant, etc) set aside for unlicensed/simple licensed operation, if they did and such users probably wouldn't have nearly as much inclination to try to use "restricted" frequencies. As we have seen with the various frequency auctions that have been held though most of the major carriers and many in the FCC have no interest in seeing such a thing happen.
Sorry Charlie But I'm using it already and nobody will catch me lolz.
The video most people run RC quads "aka drones" runs over 5.8. The govt is really trying to ram this one down and kill RC flying.
"The filters required to comply with the new rules would shrink the available frequencies from 125MHz to only 45MHz."
That is not true for equipment certified under part 15.407, but you're ignoring that. Part 15.407 equipment finally gets access to the top 25 MHz previously only available to part 15.247 equipment. Part 15.247 requirements were more lenient, yet the cleaner transmissions of part 15.407 equipment were not allowed in the 5.825 - 5.850 GHz range simply because the modulation was digital. Isn't that terrible? I'm glad this report and order fixes that oversight.
In the UNII 3 band, Part 15.407 equipment sees gains in available spectrum, power spectral density of channels under 20 MHz, and maximum antenna gain for fixed point-to-point systems. Increased antenna gain not only improves signal level, but it helps to reduce interfering with other links. Add to that the inclusion of the UNII 1 band for outdoor use and the massive power and antenna gain maxima increases there and the rules in the R&O do not "greatly limit the amount of bandwidth available in the unlicensed U-NII band used to deliver internet to rural areas;" rather, they greatly improve the landscape for wireless expansion into rural areas. Some old, dirty equipment certified under part 15.247 won't pass, hence the complaint.
I could do without the anti-hacker stipulations though. They will (and rumors of them already have) drive more configuration and protocol-level components into the hardware. This might serve to remove the ability to reconfigure devices to comply with local regulatory bodies after transferring them internationally. It also hurts or eliminates custom protocol development in commercial off-the-shelf equipment.
Most FPV transmitters are at 5.8Ghz. Used to be important that you were hitting this as close to 5800Mhz as possible so as to stay in the middle of the ISM band. Really hard to believe these 500mw transmitters can cause a signature on Doppler when most times they drop useable signal after 1200 meters.
It does seem that the FCC and the FAA are working together on this. The FAA specifically targeting FPV last week, and now the FCC trying to take back the same radio band this week.
Another happy independence day in the land of the free and the home of the brave...