Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FCC Proposal To Limit Access To 5725-5850 MHz Band

timothy posted about a month ago | from the why-can't-they-call-it-a-name-like-the-eagles? dept.

Communications 112

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.

cancel ×

112 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

so ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47378249)

fine by me, I'm lucky enough NOT to live in the USA, so its not news.
move on, nothing to read here.

Re:so ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47378423)

This is slashdot.ORG. Go make a slashdot.org.ae or something you filthy terrorist

Re:so ? (0)

Vihai (668734) | about a month ago | (#47378545)

Yes, .org, not .us :)

Re:so ? (0)

nurb432 (527695) | about a month ago | (#47378425)

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.

So who is behind this? (0)

nurb432 (527695) | about a month ago | (#47378275)

Comcast? AT&T? Someone with deep pockets wants to restrict competition and availability.

Re:So who is behind this? (5, Interesting)

Joe Gillian (3683399) | about a month ago | (#47378315)

According to the FCC's ruling, they did it to stop Wi-Fi signals interfering with Doppler radar systems that use the same frequencies. This doesn't sound like Big Telco or Big Cableco are behind it.

Re:So who is behind this? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47378383)

And you believe that?

Re:So who is behind this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47378415)

I sure don't. The first thought I had after reading just the article title was "Hmm, must be due to service provider lobbying..."

Re:So who is behind this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47378453)

They already took away 5600-5650 for shitty radar. This is the 21st century, we have satellites for this shit

Re:So who is behind this? (4, Informative)

Vihai (668734) | about a month ago | (#47378583)

Doppler radars cannot work on a satellite as the beam should be almost parallel to the earth's surface. They are used to remotely measure the wind speed and are useful in detecting rotating winds, thus tornadoes.

Re:So who is behind this? (2)

omnichad (1198475) | about a month ago | (#47379133)

They measure "wind" speed only if the wind happens to be carrying particulates (e.g., clouds, tornadoes). On a clear day, doppler radar will not show much, even with 50mph wind.

Re:So who is behind this? (1)

EvilSS (557649) | about a month ago | (#47379765)

They measure "wind" speed only if the wind happens to be carrying particulates (e.g., clouds, tornadoes). On a clear day, doppler radar will not show much, even with 50mph wind.

True, but no one is really worried about the clear days...

Re:So who is behind this? (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about a month ago | (#47380053)

But you are concerned about when a storm passes, which you can use radar for. Not because the wind stops, but because the particulates have finished passing over.

Re:So who is behind this? (1)

The New Guy 2.0 (3497907) | about a month ago | (#47378603)

Okay, but don't forget to blame Big Weather!

And BTW, I've noticed on my local cable system, The Weather Channel has been replaced by the lamer WeatherNation... could you guys check your TVs to see how big a region that is?

Re:So who is behind this? (1)

NikeHerc (694644) | about a month ago | (#47379121)

... on my local cable system, The Weather Channel has been replaced by the lamer WeatherNation...

There's something lamer than the Weather Channel? Hard to imagine. It was ok (exception noted below) before they tried to be the next Today show, now it's approaching worthless. I don't want endless moronic, idle chitchat, I want the weather.

Exception: whoever thought it was a good idea for the Wx Channel to broadcast all the idiotic reality crap needs to go back to the janitorial crew.

Re:So who is behind this? (5, Insightful)

msauve (701917) | about a month ago | (#47379159)

Yep. And the summary completely misses the part which is likely to upset most /. users:

Accordingly, we are adopting the proposal in the NPRM that manufacturers must take steps to prevent unauthorized software changes to their equipment in all of the U-NII bands

That may effectively put an end to all the Linux based APs (DD-WRT, Tomato, OpenWRT, etc.)

Re:So who is behind this? (1)

Albanach (527650) | about a month ago | (#47379413)

Presumably only on the U-NII bands, to 802.11a. Other devices would be unaffected by a rule affecting U-NII

I guess this is to prevent software modifications that may be able to increase the power output of a device beyond that permitted by the FCC?

Re:So who is behind this? (2)

msauve (701917) | about a month ago | (#47379553)

U-NNI (5 GHz) bands aren't just "a," they're also "n" and the only option for "ac." Want to run open source on an 802.11ac AP, better get one quick.

Re:So who is behind this? (4, Informative)

BitZtream (692029) | about a month ago | (#47380683)

No, no need to rush.

They just stop the radio from being modifiable by software in such a way the violates the rules. The radio firmware for radios sold in the US just won't let you use those bands at too high of power.

Guess what, they ALREADY WORK LIKE THIS.

Your OSS router software can't make random changes to the radios currently, never has been able to as there are already laws in effect governing these issues.

Some devices allow you to get buy with more than you should, but thats generally an oversight, and easily fixed in the next hardware revision ... as already happens.

This isn't going to take away your precious, no need to get your panties in a knot.

Re:So who is behind this? (1)

Microlith (54737) | about 2 months ago | (#47381469)

This isn't going to take away your precious, no need to get your panties in a knot.

You say this as we watch a train wreck of unintended consequences fall out from a 21 year old law.

Re:So who is behind this? (2)

Albanach (527650) | about a month ago | (#47379475)

Seems it is about operating beyond the permitted frequency and power:

13. The Commission’s investigations found that most 5 GHz devices are manufactured to enable operation across a wide range of frequencies, extending down into the 4 GHz bands and up to almost 6 GHz. The devices are controlled by software that manages the specific parameters used in the
equipment. In most of those cases for which a specific cause was determined, the harmful interference was the result of third parties or users modifying the software configurations to enable operation in frequency bands other than those for which the device had been certified, but without meeting the technical requirements for operation in those frequency bands (such as the U-NII-2C band where interference to the TDWR was occurring).

So a hardware limit to prevent out of band operation would solve the problem; while allowing the software to be controlled by the user. I've no idea how difficult a hardware solution would be, and I can see why it would be more expensive than a software one. If this has been abused, I can see why the FCC would be seeking such a ruling.

Re:So who is behind this? (2)

msauve (701917) | about a month ago | (#47379599)

It would also require notching out the TDWR frequencies, instead of allowing them to be used with DFS. I suppose someone could create a fuse controlled radio chip which could be used worldwide, and fuses blown during manufacturing to limit the hardware as required, but somehow I don't think the market is big enough for that to happen anytime soon.

Re:So who is behind this? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47378473)

Actually, if you read the document, there was a pretty substantial pissing match between Globalstar (providers of satellite cell service) and the device manufacturers, over technical details having to do with harmful interference to Globalstar's uplink and downlink.

The whole thing started when it was noted that there were devices in the field interfering with doppler weather radar, and that those devices could transmit outside their assigned frequencies by altering parameters through software.

Among other things, this proposal requires the manufacturers to prevent users from being able to alter the frequencies used so that they are out of their licensed spectrum.

Re:So who is behind this? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47378595)

Um, no. Amateur radio people were also having trouble with this, too. If you needed a good reason, however, interference with radar is a really good reason to limit use of this part of the unlicensed spectrum. Freebies are one thing, but we have to play together or we'll start jamming each other.

Re:So who is behind this? (1)

Goody (23843) | about 2 months ago | (#47381581)

UNII isn't even on Comcast's or AT&T's radar. It's viable competition only where other Tier 1 providers won't go.

Stay Down! (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about a month ago | (#47378287)

We can't have you proles using the available spectrum out in the boonies where no one else is using it.

Re:Stay Down! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47378849)

They are actually trying to improve performance by reducing channels.

In particular, we noted that enhanced spectrum use may be possible when devices use a very high bandwidth and the number of usable channels is small. We also noted that the trend for U-NII devices is to operate with ever wider bandwidths such as contained in the new 802.11ac standard.

By reducing channels the spectrum can better accommodate high speed protocols like 802.11ac, which can achieve 500 Mbps in single link systems.

The same thing happened in 2.4GHz 802.11. The radios that prevail today emit over many of the legacy channel numbers to achieve contemporary throughput with "N" systems. There are only 4 non-overlapping channels used in N; 1, 6, 11 and 14. That's why most N radios won't let you pick "3" for instance.

So stop your ignorant kneejerk bellyaching, please. The original story author, this dumbass parent and you mods as well. They aren't selling the "lost" channels to Verizon or something; they're improving a regulation to make it work better. The FCC is the honest broker here.

Re:Stay Down! (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about a month ago | (#47379127)

>The FCC is the honest broker here.

In my dealings with the FCC, I've found them to be anything but an honest broker.

Re:Stay Down! (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about a month ago | (#47379145)

That's why most N radios won't let you pick "3" for instance.

Which is a silly restriction. If you have neighbors on 1 and 7 on 802.11G. 3 or 4 are just about your only hope for a clean enough signal.

Re: Stay Down! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47381555)

You are incorrect and do not make sense. 11n uses the same amount of spectrum as 11bg (2412-2462MHz in NA), just different bandwidths and more bits/hz for better performance.

Same for 11a and 11n with regards to 5.745-5850MHz.

Less available channels means less capacity. Wtf logic are you using?

Re:Stay Down! (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a month ago | (#47379055)

We can't have you proles using the available spectrum out in the boonies where no one else is using it.

Yeah, those rubes have no need for weather information from Doppler radar systems. They should just stick to using their weather rocks and suck it up.

OP vs Reality (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47378351)

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.

Re:OP vs Reality (1)

russotto (537200) | about a month ago | (#47378433)

Or just old 802.11a devices that pre-date the Dynamic Frequency Selection requirements.

Re:OP vs Reality (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a month ago | (#47379177)

Or just old 802.11a devices that pre-date the Dynamic Frequency Selection requirements.

I think DFS was mandatory for 802.11a in order for it to even use the band - otherwise no one would approve the use of it. There's even a bit in the management frame to be used when radar is detected and for everyone to switch channels.

All the FCC did was find it was possible on some devices to disable it to force it to use a specific frequency.

Re:OP vs Reality (1)

russotto (537200) | about 2 months ago | (#47381039)

802.11a was released in 1999; DFS in 2003. While it was blocked in Europe before DFS, it was legal in the US.

Re:OP vs Reality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47378463)

Well, if someone would run some fiber out there, they wouldn't have to do that shit.

Re:OP vs Reality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47378685)

How do you justify running a fiber service out to those areas? The population density in most rural areas just does not justify the expense of installation, to say nothing of cost of upkeep compared to the income from your customer base. Wireless is really the only financially responsible means of covering these low population areas.

Re:OP vs Reality (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47378853)

They used exact same argument about providing electricity to rural areas 100 years ago.

Re:OP vs Reality (5, Informative)

mister_playboy (1474163) | about a month ago | (#47378889)

Finland has a population density of 41 people per square mile. If it were a US state, it would rank 40th in density.

Yet it also has an average internet speed around 5 times faster than the US average.

Re:OP vs Reality (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47379111)

Except that population density isn't an important factor. It is how they are distributed. A high or low population density doesn't tell you whether the population is strung out in rural areas or if they are all in one mega city in the middle of the state. A 200 sq. mile area with four cities each having 5k people and the same area with a single city containing 20k people have the same population density but who do you think is going to get better access?

Re:OP vs Reality (3, Insightful)

mister_playboy (1474163) | about a month ago | (#47379165)

Finland's average speed still beats the average service offered in the US's densest cities. How to you square your point with this reality?

The endless apologies for the shitty state of our Internet service is pathetic.

Re:OP vs Reality (0)

BitZtream (692029) | about 2 months ago | (#47380705)

Finland's average speed to the sites in Finland may be awesome. Average speed to the sites I want to visit?

Just because the last mile is fast doesn't mean that its useful.

Stop cherry picking metrics to go off ranting about. There comes a point when faster isn't really needed for your usage. I can get 50mb, but why bother, 99.99% of the time it would be wasted and do nothing but cost me more.

Of course, I'm also in a city thats on the list for Google Fiber soon so I'll probably be changing my story after getting it :O

Re:OP vs Reality (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 2 months ago | (#47382631)

Finland's average speed to the sites in Finland may be awesome. Average speed to the sites I want to visit?

Just because the last mile is fast doesn't mean that its useful.

Really? I have yet to see a faster last mile that hasn't resulted in a faster overall experience. The sites I want to visit? Most of them host content on the likes of Akamiai.
But don't feel bad people have been saying this for years. They said it about the 56k modems, they said it about the first ADSL modems, they said it about cable, and they are saying it now.

I guess you don't realise that in the last 15 years the service providers pipe's have grown just as fast as the last mile.

Re:OP vs Reality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47381637)

Der. Finland is socialist, not capitalist. Of course they have better preserved and more readily accessible common resources.

Re:OP vs Reality (1)

WhoEvrIwant2b (1165497) | about a month ago | (#47379193)

Just because it has a similar population density does not make it a valid comparison. Look at the two maps below, Nearly a quarter of their 5.4 million people live in Helsinki alone. If all of them have 100mbs connections or better it will be easy to have an average speed 5x the USA even if those in rural areas have no internet connection at all. I know it is popular to hate on the US for doing a crappy job rolling out broadband but we really have to stop comparisons to countries that are distinctly different. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi... [wikimedia.org] http://education.randmcnally.c... [randmcnally.com]

Re:OP vs Reality (1)

radarskiy (2874255) | about 2 months ago | (#47381477)

Because clearly the US has no population concentrations anywhere.

Re: OP vs Reality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47379839)

Really? So everybody has 5 meg? Or just those in the very dense cities and suburbs.

Re:OP vs Reality (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about a month ago | (#47380693)

Yes, because when everyone lives in a couple of large cities and most of the country is empty space ... density is the proper metric to be comparing.

Re:OP vs Reality (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 2 months ago | (#47381033)

How do you justify running a fiber service out to those areas? The population density in most rural areas just does not justify the expense of installation, to say nothing of cost of upkeep compared to the income from your customer base. Wireless is really the only financially responsible means of covering these low population areas.

Oddly enough, there is fiber already installed in some remarkably rural areas. none of it being used, but it's there.

Even then, all the "wireless" or Broadband over Power line" solutions are really last mile solutions. You are going to need fibre in the equation. note: Satellite is one exception, though slow.

The reasons for attempting to go wireless are more ideological than technical. A modern day version of the "Rural Electrification Act" is too socialistical for us now. So we'll just do without. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... [wikipedia.org]

Computer wireless and Rural, just do not mix well.

OP vs Reality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47379533)

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.

Re: OP vs Reality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47380877)

Haha. Yeah and then when you get cancer from your neighbor a mile away running 100 watts without regard to safety don't come crying. There's a reason even hams have safety restrictions.

This is actually a net gain.. (5, Insightful)

poptix (78287) | about a month ago | (#47378353)

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.

Re:This is actually a net gain.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47379059)

no its a bullshit tradeoff and i wont stand for it. first they let smart meters walk all over us on 900mhz now this. Fuck them i'll shut down and terminate the only internet connection for 10k subscibers before i comply. In fact i may go out of my way to design and opensource circuits specifically to jam doppler radar. fucking livid!

Re:This is actually a net gain.. (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a month ago | (#47379921)

Is the Doppler Weather signal not modulated so that error correction can be performed? This safety system is vulnerable to simple unintentional analog interference? Can somebody please send over an RF engineer?

Re:This is actually a net gain.. (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 2 months ago | (#47380763)

Is the Doppler Weather signal not modulated so that error correction can be performed?

If your receiver is swamped by what looks like broadband noise, what signal do you have to 'error correct'? And when you're talking about Doppler radar, you are essentially transmitting a pure signal and looking for the "errors" in the bounce-back. Doppler radar is not a stream of digital information that can have FEC or ARC attached to deal with dropouts and noise. There is neither checksum nor NACK to force a retransmission.

This safety system is vulnerable to simple unintentional analog interference?

Not necessarily that it's a "safety system", but vulnerable, yes. As are the OTH radars the Air Force operates in California that led to a reduction in the allowed use by radio amateurs in the 70 cm band there. As are the GPS signals that were being hindered by the attempts at land-based "satellite" services like Lightsquared. As can be the satellite downlinks for video programming from a number of things. As were the satellite ELT monitoring systems that could be interfered with by a faulty television.

Can somebody please send over an RF engineer?

Why? So he can tell you that a deliberate emitter sitting a mile away from a radar antenna will overpower the return from fifty miles away, either desensing the receiver or completely blocking the desired signal?

Re:This is actually a net gain.. (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 2 months ago | (#47381133)

Is the Doppler Weather signal not modulated so that error correction can be performed? This safety system is vulnerable to simple unintentional analog interference? Can somebody please send over an RF engineer?

The whole system works on weak return signals, and someone broadcasting a strong jamming signal will just swamp the intelligent signal. But not to worry, anyone jamming will stick out like a sore thumb, leading the F.C.C. right to their antenna.

OK. Skimmed it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47378369)

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.

5GHz ? (1)

bytesex (112972) | about a month ago | (#47378475)

That doesn't travel very far, right? At least not with acceptable power. It's almost microwave!

Re:5GHz ? (2)

poptix (78287) | about a month ago | (#47378535)

With appropriate directional antennas you can actually go quite a distance (easily 5 miles) while observing all the regulations.

Re:5GHz ? (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a month ago | (#47378625)

...until it rains or snows.

Re:5GHz ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47378667)

Nope. Was streaming video in the middle of a downpour last week. And ran a teleconference call in the middle of blinding snow storm. You must be thinking 24 GHZ or 60 GHz.

5 GHz is pretty resilient to that. Trees and buildings in the fresnel zone not so much.

Re:5GHz ? (1)

poptix (78287) | about a month ago | (#47378729)

Rain and snow definitely cause a fade in signal strength but if you've properly engineered the link you'll stay within acceptable signal levels. The WISP I worked for in Minnesota had to deal with plenty of rain and snow..

Anyone setting up commercial wireless links should know that they have to engineer for worst possible scenarios.

Re:5GHz ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47378773)

On 5 GHz?

Really? Not disputing that but mine went up 2dBm during last rain storm. Rarely see +/- 2-3 dBm

I agree you don't want to close signal to noise margin tho.

Re:5GHz ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47379991)

No, not really. That's why C-band bandwidth is incredibly expensive...

Re:5GHz ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47378567)

on PTP haul I am hauling 6 Miles with 50' TV towers.

Re:5GHz ? (1)

thittesd0375 (1111917) | about a month ago | (#47378579)

We've gotten 14 miles on a ptmp sector with line of sight.

Re:5GHz ? (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a month ago | (#47378611)

I was thinking exactly the same thing. 2.4GHz has trouble getting through multiple walls. Television is much lower frequency (800MHz-ish I think) and it can't handle buildings or hills. FM radio can't handle large solid areas either (and I think that's 90-100MHz). They think 5GHz is going to get internet out to rural areas? It wouldn't even get it out to my patio from my office. Rural people had at least 10 years to move back to civilization so if they want internet so if they're still acting like it's as important as water, its their own fault and satellite internet is still available anyway for a pretty bad price.

Re:5GHz ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47378721)

Sure you can. Takes pretty clear LOS. But my office is in middle of rural Indiana. And we beam about 6 miles its not a totally clear LOS. Never had a problem hauling 25 Mb on sustained basis. Bigger waves have bigger fresnel zones too and take really tall towers else the run into the earth and dissipate. Plenty of WISPs here in the midwest. Not all cover every mile but nor do the cell carriers. $200 of ubiquiti dishes and a couple of TV towers seems to work.

Re:5GHz ? (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about a month ago | (#47379187)

Rural people had at least 10 years to move back to civilization

So you think increasing overpriced real estate in the city and leaving more of the country underutilized is a good solution?

There are no walls outside if you go high enough (at least here in the plains states). Water vapor, rain, and snow, but no walls.

Re: 5GHz ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47379379)

Yea, people who grow or raise food to feed the world, appreciate clean air or peace and quiet are crazy to miss out on city life.

Re:5GHz ? (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a month ago | (#47380103)

You and the other replier apparently aren't aware that cities with 50,000 people exist. To drive from our inner city urban area to our suburbs takes 15 seconds, sometimes 30 if you hit a light. A 2000 sq ft house costs about $150,000 brand new and in an ideal zone. To drive out to a wooded area or farming area takes about 6 minutes from the center of the city. A street hot dog costs about $2.50-$4. The standard $38/mo internet connection is 15 megabits and you actually get 15 on a test (unless you're with AT&T). But we do have people stupid enough to live out in the middle of nowhere 20 minutes away who have septic and unreliable electricity. They're known to complain constantly about no internet and the long drive to go grocery shopping.

If you live in LA, it takes 2 hours to get to work, your small house cost $600,000, and you're 50 miles from farmland, that's a different story. That is THE most undesirable living condition in my opinion.

Re:5GHz ? (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about a month ago | (#47380149)

I'm aware that cities of 50,000 exist. You're apparently unaware that farmers need Internet access in the modern age, too. Specialized weather data that a lot of them rely on has moved online-only for just one example.

Complain about no Internet for good reason? Phone companies are already ripping out copper anywhere that's not super profitable. The Universal Service Fund was created to guarantee them telecommunications access. It seems that Internet access isn't considered to be telecommunications by those who don't want to cover it. It's a gap that needs to be bridged, and soon.

Re:5GHz ? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 2 months ago | (#47380717)

You're apparently unaware that farmers need Internet access in the modern age, too.

You are apparently unaware of the meaning of the word need .

No one needs the Internet. Using the wrong words utterly destroys any point you might be trying to make by showing how you don't actually know what you're saying or are just being ridiculous in your statements.

Almost? (1)

frovingslosh (582462) | about a month ago | (#47378757)

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???

Re:Almost? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47379143)

It's almost microwave!

As far as I'm concerned "microwave" is 2.4 gig. [...] Where do you think microwave starts???

I think it starts somewhere around 1GHz. You don't ask how far it extends, but I'll answer that too: somewhere around 170GHz.

Do you have some point to make?

Re:Almost? (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about a month ago | (#47379219)

Microwave does not mean microwave oven. Microwave is at the very least a range from about 1GHz to 300GHz.

And this is where you reply and tell me I missed the joke.

Re:Almost? (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a month ago | (#47379745)

Microwave does not mean microwave oven. Microwave is at the very least a range from about 1GHz to 300GHz. And this is where you reply and tell me I missed the joke.

No joke, just that you've fallen for the old "all A is B means all B is A" logical fallacy. He said that microwave ovens use 2.4GHz and thus microwaves must be at least as low as 2.4GHz, not that the only microwave frequency is the frequency used by microwave ovens. I.e., "microwave means microwave ovens" is your backwards interpretation of what he said, which was, in essence, "microwave ovens means microwaves" are used.

You also missed the context, which was that the OP said that 5.8GHz was "almost microwave", and the point being made was that it isn't "almost", it's definite.

Re:Almost? (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about a month ago | (#47380051)

I interpreted it as him saying 5GHz is double what a microwave puts out - not almost, but way beyond microwaves. Missing that it goes way beyond 2.4GHz. And he also said "maybe lower" than 2.4GHz, which kind implied to me "maybe lower, but definitely not higher"

Your reading of it makes more sense, but you certainly didn't know what I was saying because you read his post differently.

Re:5GHz ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47379957)

As it's part of the IEEE's C-band range, which is used for geosynchronous satellite communications, yea, I'd say it goes pretty far. Unless pretty far starts at >26,199 miles...

5725-5850 is in ISM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47378503)

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?

Re:5725-5850 is in ISM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47378591)

I have skimmed the doc. I don't see anything more than some DFS enforcement requirements. Actually they seem to be getting rid of bandwidth to power requirements which is nice of them.

Can anyone point out where (TFA) they are getting rid of 5.7 - 5.8?

Re:5725-5850 is in ISM (1)

thittesd0375 (1111917) | about a month ago | (#47378723)

The petition from WISPA has a fairly comprehensive summary. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/docum... [fcc.gov]

Re:5725-5850 is in ISM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47378815)

Thanks for the url.

Re:5725-5850 is in ISM (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47378989)

"802.llac may help enable higher-bandwidth indoor applications (i.e., video streaming),"

wat

video streaming is not a higher-bandwidth application. It's 10Mbit/s. It's not broken all over the place for lack of edge or indoor bandwidth, you idiots. It's broken by packet loss and unreliable channels indoors, poor buffer management at the edge, and massive strategic oversubscription at the city level by the eyeball monopolies.

Use it or lose it! (0)

The New Guy 2.0 (3497907) | about a month ago | (#47378597)

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.

more last-mile hillarity. (2)

nimbius (983462) | about a month ago | (#47378635)

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.

Re:more last-mile hillarity. (1)

thittesd0375 (1111917) | about a month ago | (#47378677)

Actually, current equipment is capable of delivering 150mb+ per 40MHz sector and new AC based equipment, that was just announced today, is capable of 450mb+. This has huge potential for bringing service to these underserved areas. http://www.ubnt.com/airmax/roc... [ubnt.com]

My letter to the FCC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47378675)

Dear FCC,
I saw your alarming proposal on Slashdot. 45MHz of bandwidth is insufficient for downloads. Please reconsider.

5GHz is the only non licensed band that works (1)

chipperdog (169552) | about a month ago | (#47378731)

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.

The petition (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about a month ago | (#47378839)

I looked at the petition, but all it says is:

Dear Federal Communications Commission:

Stop governmenting, you motherfuckers!

Light up the fiber (3)

cat_jesus (525334) | about a month ago | (#47378969)

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.

Re:Light up the fiber (2)

swb (14022) | about a month ago | (#47380403)

Citizen! When Comcast is ready, they will terminate that fiber with high quality coaxial cable and make available to you a quality entertainment bundle with hundreds of television channels and the opportunity to purchase many more. You will also gain a generous, metered Internet connection at only a small additional expense and Comcast will do its best to make sure you have just enough bandwidth to watch your Netflix in 240P with only a minimum of buffering.

Until then, Citizen, do not talk of this dark fiber until Comcast has prepared the entertainment package for you. Such technologies are not for you to understand and your idle ramblings only raise false ideas in other Citizens.

FAA possible influence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47379161)

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.

Re:FAA possible influence (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 2 months ago | (#47380747)

No one gives a shit about your crappy little 5.8ghz FPV system. Your toy is not a serious problem.

People who fly anything more than a pre made toy don't use 5.8ghz, it sucks ass for range. 2.4ghz is only marginally better, and anyone who actually cares uses 900mhz.

As was stated if you'd bothered to read, the bandwidth in question is also right around the area used by most doppler radar stations, which means random broadcasts from unregulated devices screw with doppler radar.

Also, again, if you'd bothered to read ... you'd see that the story is actually about the FCC getting irked that some devices allow end users to override existing rules for limiting power and frequency usage in the 5.8ghz band. Basically, because some shitty link sys WAP doesn't properly restrict power/frequency selection in firmware, and it can be configured by the OS to go beyond legal limits, the FCC is cracking down and getting onto manufactures who don't properly lock down their firmware.

Re:FAA possible influence (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 2 months ago | (#47381361)

Your toy is not a serious problem.

People who fly anything more than a pre made toy don't use 5.8ghz, it sucks ass for range. 2.4ghz is only marginally better, and anyone who actually cares uses 900mhz.

As was stated if you'd bothered to read, the bandwidth in question is also right around the area used by most doppler radar stations, which means random broadcasts from unregulated devices screw with doppler radar.

For sure. Remember though, we are dealing with digital people. While they know their digital, they make a few glaring errors when dealing with RF.

Going to go into a related rant now.......

One of them is the weird idea that somehow, some way, bandwidth is infinite. It isn't. One of the best charts I've ever seen to illustrate this is here:

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/... [doc.gov]

I have a 6 foot version printed out on the wall. I like to invite people to pick out some free space for their digital wifi.

Some times I think that biggest thing 2.4 GHz and above has going for it is that short range. Because that's the only way you are going to be able to stuff all the people who want to run wireless onto wireless - for now.

900 MHz will definitely work better- certainly it penetrates buildings better and travels further. That of course means that it will get crowded all that much more quickly and of course, the lower in frequency the more likely regular propagation effects will occur. I've actually heard digital people talk of using HF frequencies. Nothing like using frequencies where people have communicated around the world on insanely low power levels. So like maybe 500 people will get service worldwide Until Solar activity nukes the band. Working above the MUF can be helpful in some cases. HF is an unruly neighborhood.

Another digital myth is that it will co-exist with everyone else. DIgital signals don't play well with their neighbors, especially those that use weak signals, like GPS or Doppler Radar as you noted. (disclaimer, the doppler radar goes out pretty strong, but comes back fairly weak)

Even the ill fated BPL service, tried to notch out the frequencies of licensed services, like Amateur radio, or trans polar airline flights, but among other things, intermodulation got them interfering anyhow. And the closer to a modulated square wave on the rf signal, the more unwanted signal generation we get. So frequencies get generated in places we don't want them.

Some people have even tried to get the rules rewritten so that licensed services were not allowed to interfere with th eunlicensed ones, but the unlicensed ones were alloed to interfere with the licensed ones. - after it was found out that really low powered radios would knock out a BPL service for miles around. Insanity. Finally to the dismay of Facebook checkers and pr0n watchers and their smartphones and the other wifi users, a day of reckoning cometh. As more and more of us put more and more on wireless, there will be less and less space availble to use. We might try workarounds like spread spectrum, (watch the noise floor) but I'm pretty certain that eventually we'll go back to wire or fiber, in a "last feet' setup and use IR wireless routers in every room. There really won't be much else to do for it, lest we go without.

Yikes, I got a little long winded there, Sorry about that! But we're dealing with people who need a little more study about what they are proposing. It's disheartening to read about efforts that I know will fail by the time I hit the second paragraph.

Re:FAA possible influence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47382557)

Really cause most people who fly quads use 5.8ghz. Its not really about range w/ quads its about penetration. Most people use 1.3ghz for long range stuff. Sure am glad you know how to curse and talk like 10yr old on public forums. It clearly shows the type of liberal you are. Cause wifi routers are interfering with Doppler radar.(yah right). You believe everything you the govt tells you

To get back on point.. A few us simply noted that its odd the FCC is attacking 5.8g while all the drone - FAA regulations are trying to get rammed down our throats.

NO (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47379649)

FCC has too much control already. People can and should ignore them and use whatever frequency they feel they need.

Sorry Charlie, I'm using it already. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47380293)

Sorry Charlie But I'm using it already and nobody will catch me lolz.

This is an Attacked against Drones/ FPV 5.8ghz (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47381175)

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.

Summary is wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47381183)

"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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>