Slashdot Mirror


FCC OKs Sweeping Spectrum Frontiers Rules To Open Up Nearly 11 GHz Of Spectrum (fiercewireless.com)

Monica Alleven, reporting for FierceWirelessTech: In one fell swoop, the FCC today put the U.S. in a 5G leadership position, voting 5-0 to approve its Spectrum Frontiers proceeding and make spectrum bands above 24 GHz available for 5G. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, noting his previous remarks on the proceeding, kept his remarks brief to avoid repeating himself. But he summed it up this way before the final vote: "This is a big day for our nation. This is a big day for this agency," he said. "I do believe this is one of the, if not the most, important decision this agency will make this year. By becoming the first nation to identify high-band spectrum, the United States is ushering in the 5G era of high capacity, high-speed, low-latency wireless networks. By not getting involved in the technologies that will use the spectrum, we're turning loose the incredible innovators of this country," he said. The new rules open up nearly 11 GHz of high-frequency spectrum for mobile and fixed wireless broadband -- 3.85 GHz of licensed spectrum and 7 GHz of unlicensed spectrum. The rules create a new Upper Microwave Flexible Use service in the 28 GHz (27.5-28.35 GHz), 37 GHz (37-38.6 GHz) and 39 GHz (38.6-40 GHz) bands, and a new unlicensed band at 64-71 GHz. The FCC will continue to seek comment on bands above 95 GHz.

40 of 64 comments (clear)

  1. Re:OH CRAP RED TITLE BAR WUT DID I DO by darkain · · Score: 2

    You must be new here...

  2. Attenuation Above 10Gz by lobiusmoop · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sounds good for outdoor use, but above 10Ghz the signal starts behaving more like infrared than microwave and is going to struggle to get through walls I think.

    --
    "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
    1. Re:Attenuation Above 10Gz by blackomegax · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hell even at 5ghz you start to have issues past one (two, max) layers of drywall. Everything else is *fucked* for penetration.

    2. Re:Attenuation Above 10Gz by OverlordQ · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not even good for outdoors, any time it rains you'd be having issues. High Frequency and water dont mix.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    3. Re:Attenuation Above 10Gz by drakaan · · Score: 2

      Technically, HF (shortwave, CB) and water mix just fine...EHF and water, however, do not ;)

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    4. Re:Attenuation Above 10Gz by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      HF is only between 3 and 30 MEGAHz, not GHz

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    5. Re:Attenuation Above 10Gz by drakaan · · Score: 1

      Right...hence my comment replying to a comment about High Frequency RF signals and water.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
  3. Re:hmm by DarkOx · · Score: 2, Informative

    Should actually be pretty safe unless the power level is really high because its hardly going to penetrate the skin.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  4. all for the low price of.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seriously you will still get ripped off royally by the cellphone carriers, who will charge you over $100, for a network speed you'll never get with less than 5GB of bandwidth per month. So this means nothing.

  5. Re:Frequency limited by processor clock speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Errr... how does a lightbulb generate light at 750000GHz from 60Hz AC?

  6. They need to change the business model by ArhcAngel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The FCC needs to take back control of all spectrum and assign one company (fully regulated) to implement the towers/technology then let the providers lease space on the towers for their customers. They now compete on service and can't play games with throttling streaming competitors.

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
  7. Displaced services by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative
    Based on the latest FCC spectrum chart, it looks like the displaced services are:
    • Earth to space satellite comms (27.5 - 29.5 GHz)
    • Space research (37.0 - 38.6 GHz)
    • Space to earth satellite comms (37.5 - 40.0 GHz)
    • Inter-satellite comms (64.0 - 71.0 GHz)
    • Earth exploration and space research (65.0 - 66.0 GHz)
    • Radio navigation (66.0 - 71.0 GHz)

    Although Summary makes it sound like this is entirely a 5G thing, the unlicensed 64-71 GHz band suffers from high attenuation due to rain and oxygen, and aren't useful for distances more than about 1 mile. So this spectrum is clearly aimed at higher speed wifi (multi-gigabit).

    1. Re:Displaced services by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Funny

      So we won't know when the aliens are about to attack. But we will have faster Youtubes. Thanks a lot Obama!

    2. Re:Displaced services by k6mfw · · Score: 2

      Thanks for posting this link, I could only find 2003 charts. anyway, I'm old enough to remember seeing freq charts where all the high GHz spectrum was allocated amateur (all that is useless so let the hams have it).

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
  8. Re:Frequency limited by processor clock speed? by sunking2 · · Score: 2

    You must work in IT.

  9. Decent broadband in rural areas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Does this mean there will finally be decent wireless broadband in rural areas?

    1. Re:Decent broadband in rural areas by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Nope, you want lower frequency ranges for that, higher frequency = shorter distance.

  10. Nothing to get excited about. by denis-The-menace · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If it was LOWER than 2.4GHz then yes.

    If instead of selling off *ALL* analog TV channels to the highest bidder
    they would have kept ONE channel and made that unlicensed,
    NOW THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXCITING!

    Instead we get frequencies that are block-able by clouds.

    --
    Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
  11. Free-for-all spectrum? by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'd be inclined to agree with you - for thinly populated areas.

    You do realize that (for a wide frequency band) the EM spectrum is a shared resource? Like the air we breathe: if I start a fire, that removes oxygen from the air around it. And puts smoke in the air. Smoke that will be visible from a distance, and the combustion products may affect people in a wide area. Therefore (in most populated areas) people are not free to burn stuff out in the open as they please. Such activities may be regulated, and rightfully so.

    Above certain EM frequencies (say, IR and up), the physical properties of signals make it pointless to try and regulate things. Below certain frequencies, lack of practical applications make regulation not-needed / pointless. But in between, we're talking about a shared (and limited!) resource. So some government regulation is quite appropriate.

    1. Re:Free-for-all spectrum? by k6mfw · · Score: 3, Informative

      So some government regulation is quite appropriate.

      if you go way back there was a time when spectrum was unregulated. Gordon West wrote in his GROL book in 1920s (or early 30s) the Supreme Court ruled Dept of Commerce did not have enforcement authority. Radio stations went wild, using whatever freq and power levels they wanted. It became such a mess many listeners turned off their receivers and radio sales plummeted. Later when FCC was created they wrote legislation more carefully.

      But it seems FCC has become regulatory captured as they seem more interested in selling spectrum. Interesting to talk with old timers recalling when FCC did enforcement and regulation including Part 15 products (maybe the high tech just got too fast for proper regulation). Many think the free market is more efficient but then there is no and never was a free market (except in the wild west and things were not that great, kind of like Somalia), everything is owned and controlled. If owned and controlled by one or a very few entities, well we get what we got which is what we are all bitching about today.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
  12. Re:Frequency limited by processor clock speed? by cheater512 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Frequency multipliers and other fancy tricks.

    You generate a 10mhz signal, then add it to a 20ghz sine wave. Bingo you've got a 10mhz channel at 20ghz.
    That's a simplification of what wifi channels do.

  13. Re:Frequency limited by processor clock speed? by Dishwasha · · Score: 2

    Use a 60GHz diode and amplitude modulate it as one example.

  14. Re:Impossible coverage by scsirob · · Score: 1

    I'm sure all US citizens will soon have to comply with the new Network Distribution Privacy Act (due to be announced soon) which means allowing at least one, or when required for coverage, two 71GHz transceivers in every room of their private property. When multiple operators are active in your region that will of course double or more. Service personnell must have unrestricted access to ensure full network coverage at all times.

    People, stop the madness. Go out, leave your phone at home, get a life.

    --
    To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
  15. Massive amounts of transmit power? by kheldan · · Score: 2

    At those wavelengths, aren't the transmitters going to need to output a rediculous amount of power in order to get any reasonable distance, and for that matter, don't the transmitters themsevles get even more inefficient? This on top of the obvious attenuation problem from just about anything, including raindrops?

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  16. I'm OK if they are forced to use it for = 5G by tlambert · · Score: 1

    I'm OK if they are forced to use it for >= 5G... if they won't provide 5G willingly, and are holding it hostage to a crippled net neutrality: sorry: I guess you don't get new spectrum.

    https://yro.slashdot.org/story...

    And yes, I'm aware, that most of the asses in the /. article are European, but some of them are the same companies in both the U.S. and Europe.

    1. Re:I'm OK if they are forced to use it for = 5G by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Europe here. If the choice is to either have net neutrality or 5G, I take net neutrality. Twice. Thrice on weekends. Hell, take 3G while you're at it, too.

      In other words, why should I give a shit about how fast my internet is if I'm not the one who gets to decide what this speed is spent on?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  17. Re:not free to burn stuff by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    My first guess for why people are not free to burn stuff is because things that are not theirs are more likely to catch fire, and a lot of other stuff.

    I'm not sure how much your reasoning holds water as air is mobile and if that was really the issue there would have been more problems back in the time where fire was the main method of keeping warm and cooking. We talk of the great fire of London and Rome burned while Nero fiddled because of stuff burning not asphyxiation. Of course, in enclosed and insulated spaces there are issues and that's a more modern thing. Though the chemical composition of things that get burned these days have changed too, to having a more toxic composition. Still, my original analysis is more time-worthy.

  18. Re:Frequency limited by processor clock speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    First you have to get it really excited

  19. Re:FCC = Nazi Organization by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Or maybe you could try using an array of directional antennas. I'm still learning all the conventional wisdom, and the workarounds that make them not all hold water, but I use three indoor antennas attached to one television to pick up channels, and what I read on the ARRL website would seem to suggest that the signals should either cancel themselves out as when impromptu karaoke tracks are made, or be out of timing alignment with each other which are kind of variations on the same problem. There are any number of ways of tackling the problem and I'm not even sure the problem has been identified correctly as among other things when it gets explained, the effects of relativity don't seem to be taken into account, and don't anyone go expecting me to put into words for them my limited understanding of relativity, though if anyone else feels so inclined to express their understanding, well go ahead.

  20. Re:Frequency limited by processor clock speed? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Informative

    You generate a 10mhz signal, then add it to a 20ghz sine wave.

    Actually you MULTIPLY it, which exercises a trigonometric identity that creates two new "sidebands":
      - The 10 mHz signal with the frequency of each component of it shifted up by 20gHz (i.e. a component at 10 mHz would appear at 20gHz + 10 mHz, a component at 5mHz would appear at 20gHz + 5mHz, etc.)
      - The 10 mHz signal with the frequency of each component of it interpreted as a NEGATIVE frequency (i.e. frequency-inverted) and shifted up by 20gHz (i.e. a component at 10 mHz would appear at 20gHz - 10 mHz, a component at 5mHz would appear at 20gHz - 5mHz, etc.)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  21. Free-speech-for-all spectrum? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    You do realize that (for a wide frequency band) the EM spectrum is a shared resource?

    You do realize that (for a wide frequency band) the audio spectrum is a shared resource?

    Why don't we have a Federal Speech Commission regulating the use of the audio spectrum? Just think: If everyone talks at once, nobody can hear each other. If some people talk louder they drown others out. If people talk at night they keep others awake. And so on.

    By the same arguments used to claim regulation of the radio spectrum is necessary to smooth functioning of radio communications, it is also necessary for the smooth functioning of speech.

    So we need to be licensed before we can talk. Some of us would be licensed only talk in low growly voices and others in high squeeky voices, to better avoid interference. All of us would be limited to speak below an assigned loudness level an only in certain places. Certain words would be prohibited, as would advocacy of the consumption of certain products (such as cigarettes). Some subject (such as "adult" activities) could only be talked about during restricted hours. Special licenses would be needed for high-power amplifiers, such as megaphones. I could go on.

    That pesky First Amendment puts a big roadblock in the way of common-sense regulation of speech, without which SO much less audio communication can take place.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Free-speech-for-all spectrum? by dfsmith · · Score: 1

      Quite right! All speech should be limited to under 1.5 kW ERP! Those 10 MW people are just too loud for my ears. And don't get me started on libraries....

    2. Re:Free-speech-for-all spectrum? by sjames · · Score: 1

      However poorly enforced, there ARE regulations on sound. Lots of them. There is less need for actual licensing since sound rarely travels so far that the source can't be readily identified and it's hard to justify licensing an in-born vapability.

      If we were born able to emit radio frequency, we'd probably have no licensing there (but we wouldn't likely allow radio at all since it would be equivalent to standing on the sidewalk with a megawatt power bullhorn.

    3. Re:Free-speech-for-all spectrum? by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      You do realize that (for a wide frequency band) the audio spectrum is a shared resource?

      What an absolutely worthless comparison.

      When you develop a network technology that can handle numerous transmitters on the same frequency---some of which are far more powerful than the one you're listening to---go ahead and let the rest of us know.

      Until then, we'll continue to divvy up the spectrum so that things work in the real world.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    4. Re:Free-speech-for-all spectrum? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      When you develop a network technology that can handle numerous transmitters on the same frequency---some of which are far more powerful than the one you're listening to---go ahead and let the rest of us know.

      It's a class of modulation schemes called "spread spectrum". Been around for decades. If it's done right you can't even tell there are other signals out there unless you know THEIR spreading codes because they look too much like thermal background noise.

      Yes, they "make the grass taller" and the total bandwidth is still limited by Shannon's criteria (with the interfering signals acting as "noise" in the "signal-to-noise-ratio" term.) So being located too close to "someone shouting" still makes it hard to hear. (Like being next to a waterfall.)

      On the other hand, licensing doesn't seem to do what it claims, either. I've got a vehicle with a Sirius satellite receiver, and some company has, over the last couple years, been installing what appear to be cellular mini-towers that create block-wide dead zones all over Silicon Valley. (Some of them make my 2G phone drop connections, too, and some other spots kill the phone without killing the satellite feed.) The zones are too large for the 4-second buffer to cover. My commute is about 14 miles, almost all on 880 and/or 680 in Fremont and Milpitas (if I don't shunpike) and I can't find a route with less than four dead spots for the phone and three for Sirus-XM.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  22. Re:Frequency limited by processor clock speed? by dfsmith · · Score: 1

    I can only modulate my 800THz light bulbs at about 2000mHz though. B-(

  23. In other news... by kd3bj · · Score: 1

    Home Depot outbids Netflix in FCC auction for rights to reflect
        orange light.

        Landmark Supreme Court ruling affirms government argument that the
        de Broglie equation grants FCC regulatory authority over solid matter.

        FCC announces new MassFi initiative, granting unlicensed access to
        a broad range of particle momentum.

        Loophole in FCC rules allow for MHz and Mc spectra to be auctioned separately.

        Negative frequencies outlawed.
     

    1. Re:In other news... by Megane · · Score: 1

      I don't look forward to the FCC license I'll need to tape an LED to a coin battery.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  24. paper by AndyKron · · Score: 2

    Of course, it won't penetrate a piece of paper, but what the hey?

  25. Re:Frequency limited by processor clock speed? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    You know all that, but you don't know it's capital M and capital G?

    Sorry. Was in a hurry.

    (But what's nine orders of magnitude {in the m vs. M case} among friends? B-) )

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way