×

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 Opens Wireless 3.6GHZ Band

CmdrTaco posted about 10 years ago | from the two-scoops-of-spectrum dept.

Wireless Networking 111

mdeb writes "Broadband Reports has a story on the FCC opening up a portion of the 3.6 GHz spectrum. "This initiative would reserve 50 megahertz in the 3.6 GHz band for unlicensed wireless Internet operations. Setting aside this spectrum would make it easier for vendors to build devices that would work across all Wi-Fi frequencies and create new wireless Internet opportunities in rural America. The new proposal would allow transmissions at power levels higher than currently permitted for Part 15 unlicensed devices.""

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

111 comments

Protect Birds (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8874404)

EW!!!

First search for the word Vagina [a9.com]

Returned This! [utah.edu]

GUH-ROH-DEE

I love you kewsh

Seelet is the biggest queen in #dlf

My cats name is brownshoo

Re:Protect Birds (0, Offtopic)

JVert (578547) | about 10 years ago | (#8876132)

The endometrial cavity is opened to reveal lush fronds of hyperplastic endometrium. Endometrial hyperplasia usually results with conditions of prolonged estrogen excess and can lead to metrorrhagia (uterine bleeding at irregular intervals), menorrhagia (excessive bleeding with menstrual periods), or menometrorrhagia.

who writes this stuff?

edgar allan poe would be proud...

The raven sat perched upon the irregular mass in the upper fundus that proved to be endometrial adenocarcinoma on biopsy. Quote the raven "Thus, any postmenopausal bleeding should make you suspect that this lesion may be present."

first post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8874405)

two in three days, I say. alas. the monkey is rich.

First poop (1)

Klerck (213193) | about 10 years ago | (#8874406)

I can't believe I just shit my pants at the beach

Re:First poop (1)

Fecal Troll Matter (445929) | about 10 years ago | (#8874658)

I hope you weren't joking, because I've done this. It was no accident, I mean, where do they expect you to go? I hopped into the Atlantic, dropped my drawers, took care of business, and let the motion of the ocean take care of the rest. Good times.

Excellent (5, Funny)

2names (531755) | about 10 years ago | (#8874421)

Now I can Internet-up my cow herd. Sweet.

Radio Free United States: +1, Patriotic (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8874557)

Broadcasting to free all people from The Ultimate Failure [whitehouse.org]

Cheers,
Kilgore Trout

Re:Excellent (1)

epiphani (254981) | about 10 years ago | (#8875152)

Funny, yes, but it raises a question in my mind.

I'll freely admit that my knowledge of physics is lacking, but I'm curious. I was under the impression that the higher the frequency, the higher the amplitude needed to be in order to travel the same given distance. Meaning if I can pull 5km with 2.4Ghz 802.11b at the maximum allowable energy output, would I not need to exceed that same energy output in order to achieve the same result at 3.4Ghz?

I did note that they are allowing a higher energy output at 3.4Ghz - would that be the purpose?

Re:Excellent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8876235)


Many different effects are at play. If atmospheric absorbsion and rain scattering of signal are ignored (appropriate at these two frequency bands), and your path allows you to ignore penetration or reflection issues from structures or vegitation, the major variable at play is wavelength.

When the frequency doubles, the wavelength is halved. Signal loss between antennas with distance is dependent on wavelength. If there are twice as many wavelengths between antennas, the signal electric field loss is twice as high. However, for a given antenna aperature (diameter of dish), antenna gain is inversely proportional to wavelength (shorter wavelength, more antenna gain).

This effect counters the additional loss above.

Maximum power levels for each service are usually determined by the density of frequency reuse desired (more users can coexist in a given geographic area if lower power levels are used).

Re:Excellent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8877149)

However, for a given antenna aperature (diameter of dish), antenna gain is inversely proportional to wavelength (shorter wavelength, more antenna gain).

I don't think this is a very fair description ... your leaving out a key factor being how the wavelength affects the directivity of a parabolic dish.
A parabolic dishes diameter is usually a large multiple of the wavelength of a given signal. As the diameter is increased (in multiples) the directivity of the radiated signal increases. As the directivity of the signal increases (becomes more focused), the gain in that direction increases.

- The diameter of the dish is usually many multiples of the wavelength.
- Directivity increases as the multiple increases
- The gain of the antenna increases as the directivity becomes more focused.

so while your comment could be considered accurate, it is misleading. The only reason gain decreases as the wavelength becomes longer (lower frequency) is because the parabolic dish has lost directivity (due to the ratio between diameter and wavelength decreasing) and therefore lost gain.

Re:Excellent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8877889)

Check out our paper at the ICRA04 robotics conference: "Virtual Fences for Controlling Cows". We have wireless ad-hoc networking implemented on a herd of dairy cattle and ping cows all the time.

Forget this... (-1, Offtopic)

Uber Banker (655221) | about 10 years ago | (#8874426)

I just found out Yahoo Finance leaked a Reuters news story which had USD100millions of implications!

Rural Broadband via Wireless (5, Interesting)

Johnny Doughnuts (767951) | about 10 years ago | (#8874432)

Does this mean if I lived out in the 'country', and my neighbours had nodes, or a corporate sponsership program was setup, internet would be readily available?

(honest question, seriously)

Neighbors with nodes (5, Funny)

AtariAmarok (451306) | about 10 years ago | (#8874451)

Does this mean if I lived out in the 'country', and my neighbours had nodes

They can always go to the city and go to a hospital and get those things removed.

Re:Rural Broadband via Wireless (5, Informative)

hab136 (30884) | about 10 years ago | (#8874559)

Does this mean if I lived out in the 'country', and my neighbours had nodes, or a corporate sponsership program was setup, internet would be readily available?

Check out http://www.locustworld.com/ [locustworld.com] for information about mesh networks.. essentially you hop along your neighbors until you get to a neighbor that has internet, thereby giving everyone internet.

Re:Rural Broadband via Wireless (3, Informative)

Uber Banker (655221) | about 10 years ago | (#8874600)

Shame you are modded as Troll. Mods must not realse the 3.6GHz spectrum would be quite useful for longer distance communication, for example it would make a wireless net (literally) covering low population density areas a lot more feasible - i.e. te 'country'.

Re:Rural Broadband via Wireless (2, Interesting)

Old Uncle Bill (574524) | about 10 years ago | (#8874686)

Yeah, I thought this was part of the spectrum they were planning on using for 802.16a. I know Redline [redlinecom...ations.com] is using 5.8, but I thought I read somewhere that they were using a bunch of frequencies including somewhere in the 3 GHz range for WiMax.

Re:Rural Broadband via Wireless (1)

LordMyren (15499) | about 10 years ago | (#8875799)

what particular advantages do this higher frequency piece of spectrum bear over 2.4 and 5 Ghz?

i want some chunk of spectrum where plant matter is not like a black hole for my signal.

802.16a wireless in this frequency range? (1)

MtViewGuy (197597) | about 10 years ago | (#8875057)

Why do I keep on thinking that the 802.16a extension to WiMax wireless networking will allocated that 50 MHz allocation in the 3.6 GHz range?

(For those who don't know, 802.16a is the standard that allows wireless broadband Internet even if you're in a moving vehicle up to 250 km/h or 155 mph; that means you can have wireless broadband Internet even in a moving car or a fast-moving train if you're in the range of the antenna.)

Re:802.16a wireless in this frequency range? (3, Informative)

Wesley Felter (138342) | about 10 years ago | (#8875117)

Why do I keep on thinking that the 802.16a extension to WiMax wireless networking will allocated that 50 MHz allocation in the 3.6 GHz range?

Spectrum isn't allocated to protocols, but you can bet that ISPs will use 802.16 in this new band.

For those who don't know, 802.16a is the standard that allows wireless broadband Internet even if you're in a moving vehicle up to 250 km/h or 155 mph...

Nope. 802.16a is for fixed devices. 802.16e will support low-speed mobility and 802.20 will support high-speed mobility (e.g. moving cars).

And BTW, 802.16a has already been obsoleted by 802.16revD.

Re:802.16a wireless in this frequency range? (1)

LordMyren (15499) | about 10 years ago | (#8875869)

where is 802.20 spawned from? is it a "wiMax" child, or some independent ZigBee esque alternative?

its interesting they'd bother to distinguish between high and low speed mobility. where is the line between the two?

in eitheer situtation you should be able to use the same handoff protocols. that shouldnt need to vary.

Re:802.16a wireless in this frequency range? (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | about 10 years ago | (#8876064)

AFAIK 802.16 was originally designed without any consideration for mobility, and then task group e tacked on mobility support as best they could. 802.20 looks like it's being designed for mobility from the beginning, so it aims to be around 2x as efficient as 802.16e.

Re:802.16a wireless in this frequency range? (1)

iminplaya (723125) | about 10 years ago | (#8875655)

Hmmm...and here I am thinking you had to be near light speed to affect those kinds of things :-)

Re:802.16a wireless in this frequency range? (2, Funny)

LordMyren (15499) | about 10 years ago | (#8875825)

whats the use in going past 88 mph anyways?

Re:802.16a wireless in this frequency range? (1)

NanoGator (522640) | about 10 years ago | (#8876917)

"whats the use in going past 88 mph anyways?"

You could have ping times that'd make the sysadmin's eyebrows go up.

Re:802.16a wireless in this frequency range? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8877100)

"whats the use in going past 88 mph anyways?"

You could have ping times that'd make the sysadmin's eyebrows go up.


Methinks you missed the joke. Watch Back to the Future for the reference.

Re:802.16a wireless in this frequency range? (1)

NanoGator (522640) | about 10 years ago | (#8877112)

"Methinks you missed the joke. Watch Back to the Future for the reference."

Methinks you missed my joke. I was trying to imply that he could have negative ping times.

Oh well, if I blew it I blew it.

Re:802.16a wireless in this frequency range? (1)

dave1g (680091) | about 10 years ago | (#8878341)

if it is any consolidation I figured you meant negative, and not huge positive.

Good BttF joke

HONKIN ON BOBO IS ON TEH SPOKE (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8874442)

Re:HONKIN ON BOBO IS ON TEH SPOKE (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8874489)

While offtopic, you happen to be right. It's their best album in years.

Saw them in concert last night, and they still effin rock.

Hey... (-1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8874444)

Better get your tinfoil hat before the supplies run out!

story of industry cooperation (1)

Muda69 (718162) | about 10 years ago | (#8874447)

When the Software industry had badly gone down, three giants Sun, SCO(UNIX) and Microsoft started producing condoms and named them Java-condo, CondomiX , and MS-Condome respectively.

A customer using Java-condo complained to Sun that the condom doesn't fit correctly.

Sun replied: "Wait till we get the ISO standard".
They boasted that it will fit to any size irrespective of underlying structure.
Well, the customer switched to CondomiX and found that by the time he finshes reading the instructions, given along with CondomiX, his wife was sleeping and he himself forgetting why he is using CondomiX.

Finally he switched to MS-Condom. To his surprise it was so good...and comfortable!. He used it happily. Six months later he found that his wife was pregnant. He got angry and complained to Microsoft.
He got his reply from Microsoft:

--- --- --- A PATCH IS COMING SOON...!

Hopefully the cordless phones will stay out (5, Insightful)

DrewBeavis (686624) | about 10 years ago | (#8874450)

I'd hate to see a repeat of the 2.4GHz problems I see with other unlicensed operations interfering with data services.

Re:Hopefully the cordless phones will stay out (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8874477)

Don't forget to pay your $699 SCO fee, you cock-smoking teabaggers.

Re:Hopefully the cordless phones will stay out (-1, Troll)

SCOFeeTroll'sLawyer (771349) | about 10 years ago | (#8874632)

Dear Anonymous Coward,

Please refrain from using the phrase "Don't forget to pay your $699 SCO fee, you cock-smoking teabaggers" or any variant of such phrase. It is a registered trademark of the SCO$699FeeTroll. And rest assured, said troll never posts his trademarked phrase anonymously.

Sincerly,
SCOFeeTroll'sLawyer.

Re:Hopefully the cordless phones will stay out (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8874706)

Suck a Boot, SCO-Bagging Teasmoker. Can you represent me too, plz?

Re:Hopefully the cordless phones will stay out (1)

nolife (233813) | about 10 years ago | (#8874813)

Am I missing something?
What things operate illegally in this band that it is significant enough to cause general problems? Aren't cordless phones are allowed to operate in the 2.4Ghz band?

Re:Hopefully the cordless phones will stay out (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8874937)

you are.

he's saying how he doesn't like the phones interfering with the data because the data was there first, and then phones came in and mucked crap up. Ergo, even though the frequency is unrestricted, data has "more right", by this logic, to be there and not be interfered with.

Re:Hopefully the cordless phones will stay out (1)

nolife (233813) | about 10 years ago | (#8877957)

I do not believe that is correct at all. 2.4ghz actually had uses for years in HAM radio and amature television. In 1998, the FCC opened it up for general unlicenced consumer use or to be interpeted as "experimental spectrum", so use of the airwaves is not licensed by the FCC.. At that time, phones, access points, blutooth, and whatever else you wanted consistant with the FCC guidelines could use that range. To say 2.4 was originally for wi-fi use is not correct. Although wireless networks in the 2.4Ghz is great idea, using an unlicensed spectrum is definatley not a stable thing. But.. consumers, businesses, and congress are now seeing the advantages and market for wireless networks and by the article referenced topic, appear to attempt to provide a specific regulated region for them to operate.

Re:Hopefully the cordless phones will stay out (2, Informative)

eggboard (315140) | about 10 years ago | (#8874838)

One article noted that this band would require the use of cognitive radios to reduce interference far below the threshold of Part 15's normal "don't interfere, accept interference" standard.

Job opportunities (1)

microwave_EE (768395) | about 10 years ago | (#8874457)

(for me, when I get my masters). This is great news, as it'll allow me to use my skills with HFSS and ADS to more easily get a job engineering microwave and millimeterwave monolithic and integrated circuitry! Yay!

Re:Job opportunities (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8874538)

We regret to inform you that all jobs pertaining to your skills are being outsourced to India.

Have a nice day!

Re:Job opportunities (1)

microwave_EE (768395) | about 10 years ago | (#8874578)

Dang! I knew there was a reason that nobody else around here is studying this stuff!!

Re:Job opportunities (1)

Neil Blender (555885) | about 10 years ago | (#8874783)

Dang! I knew there was a reason that nobody else around here is studying this stuff!!

Yeah, those emails you get about getting degrees by mail are all scams. Take it from me. I spent $79,000 to get 137 PhDs and I still can't get a job.

Satellites! (3, Insightful)

ponds (728911) | about 10 years ago | (#8874461)

On one hand, widespread proliferation of broadband without having to hang out near a hotspot will change everything, but on the other hand.... I really hope they dont do something like WEP again.

Re:Satellites! (2, Informative)

GPLDAN (732269) | about 10 years ago | (#8875910)

WEP is being replaced by 802.11i also called WPA. Win XP already supports WPA.

Covering all spectrums? (4, Interesting)

drewzhrodague (606182) | about 10 years ago | (#8874463)

With so many different rf ranges available for potential IP traffic, how do we cover all bands? I'm psyched that there are so many options available to us, b, g, a. It's nice to see so many unintended uses. Welcome to the future!

Obligatory Fake Quote from article (4, Insightful)

mrn121 (673604) | about 10 years ago | (#8874479)

"...and it is also noted that no longer will food have to be put IN microwaves to heat it." -obligatory fake quote from article

Hopefully not my problem (anymore) (-1, Offtopic)

Fished (574624) | about 10 years ago | (#8874487)

I just found out today that DSL appears to now be available at my address. Woot!

Does distance scale with frequency? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8874506)

If so, this will get only 50% more range than 802.11. I don't see that as a big deal. I'll stick with my 2.4 gear.

Re:Does distance scale with frequency? (4, Interesting)

pholower (739868) | about 10 years ago | (#8874572)

But since this is only been reserved for internet usage you will not have all of the other crap on this range as you do on the 2.4GHz band. Cell phones, portable handhelds, WiFi, 2-ways... etc. This list goes on, and companies keep building more items for them.

Re:Does distance scale with frequency? (2, Insightful)

4of12 (97621) | about 10 years ago | (#8875476)


But since this is only been reserved for internet usage you will not have all of the other crap on this range as you do on the 2.4GHz band.

Mmmm.

But the Internet isn't reserved.

Expect VoIP, video phones, X10 over IP alarm systems, http-baby-monitors, (the list goes on) to clog up that there "Internet".

Re:Does distance scale with frequency? (1)

dzarn (760066) | about 10 years ago | (#8875864)

xpect VoIP, video phones, X10 over IP alarm systems, http-baby-monitors, (the list goes on) to clog up But everything running over IP will coexist a lot better than all those running over their own proprietary protocols (ie current cordless phones)

Re:Does distance scale with frequency? (5, Informative)

microwave_EE (768395) | about 10 years ago | (#8874657)

Not necessarily. Distance scales by the inverse of the atmospheric absorption. Of course there are many, many other factors involved: EM noise from the environment, RF noise from pre-existing transmitters using this frequency range, power of the transmitter, effective area of the transmitter (or receiver), modulation scheme (how data is modulated onto the RF carrier--for example, AM, FM, PM, digitization then FM, etc), and a whole host of other issues.

Re:Does distance scale with frequency? (5, Insightful)

AdamG (23268) | about 10 years ago | (#8874792)

50% more distance is 125% more area, though.

Re:Does distance scale with frequency? (1)

mgbastard (612419) | about 10 years ago | (#8875625)

AdamG declared:
50% more distance is 125% more area, though.

Thank you sir!

It's really good for last mile broadband though, f' the phone company and cable company. I'll pipe off a bonded T1 installed in a cabinet somewhere nearby (downtown fibuh, oooh, *drool*) and be done with it.

Anyways, I really look forward to this - except I was about to purchase a 3.6ghz licensed system. Um, I'll be looking for another slice of bandwidth. Thanks slashdot!

I like you. You know math. SOOOO many professionals would look at that, look at the formula for the area of a circle, and still go huh!?!

Not to mention how often people f'up percentages.

(yes some of it's offtopic, but nobody else is posting on this topic)

3.6Ghz??? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8874519)

Heh, the FCC has a little name they like to use around the office for that spectrum. They call it the ghetto spectrum. "Who can we pawn the ghetto spectrum off on?" was commonly heard at HQ.

Penetration Problem? (3, Informative)

TheJavaGuy (725547) | about 10 years ago | (#8874564)

The higher the frequency, the harder it is for the signal to penetrate through a wall.

Re:Penetration Problem? (1)

vwjeff (709903) | about 10 years ago | (#8875284)

The higher the frequency, the harder it is for the signal to penetrate through a wall

This is true. I don't see this being used as a home product. A great use for this spectrum would be for high speed internet access in rural areas.

Re:Penetration Problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8875701)

2.4 GHz can't make it through foilage... I understand at a higher wattage you can burn through more foilage, but realistically we need something in the 200 - 800 MHz range for a low wattage model to be effective.

Re:Penetration Problem? (1)

DrKayBee (769192) | about 10 years ago | (#8876087)

If I remember correctly, the penetration scales as the inverse fourth power of the frequency (f^-4) - so I don't know how good of a signal carrier it might be. Also the power consumption will be quite high - no?

Re:Penetration Problem? (1)

trippinonbsd (689462) | about 10 years ago | (#8878087)

Well 802.11a, which runs @ 5Ghz seems to work rather well. So I doubt 3.6Ghz will be poor at penetration.

Higher freq. & higher power = signal penetrati (4, Informative)

StateOfTheUnion (762194) | about 10 years ago | (#8874603)

The higher the frequency, the worse the performance for going through walls and other barriers for a given transmission power . . . Allowing transmission at higher power might help compensate for the higher frequency . . . Hopefully this won't be like 4.X Ghz which doesn't seem to go through walls very well

So soon I will be able to have a 2.4 Ghz wireless network, and a 3.6 Ghz wireless phone and they shouldn't interfere with each other right?

Re:Higher freq. & higher power = signal penetr (4, Funny)

Wesley Felter (138342) | about 10 years ago | (#8874732)

I think this new band is intended for outdoor last-mile Internet access, so penetration of buildings is not a concern. If you use 3.6GHz 802.16, 5GHz 802.11a, and a 2.4GHz cordless phone, they won't overlap (although your brain may explode from the alphabet soup).

Re:Higher freq. & higher power = signal penetr (1)

timmi (769795) | about 10 years ago | (#8875494)

there are other unlicensed bands that you can use for cordless phones as well... 900 mhz is what we use in my house.

Plus there are lower frequency bands that are unlicensed, including the ones used for RC Cars

Re:Higher freq. & higher power = signal penetr (1)

iminplaya (723125) | about 10 years ago | (#8875820)

The higher the frequency, the worse the performance for going through walls and other barriers for a given transmission power...

That makes me wonder why we don't go with the low frequency stuff...10Khz down to 10Hz. Gotta be something there we can use.

Re:Higher freq. & higher power = signal penetr (1)

Zarquon (1778) | about 10 years ago | (#8877392)

Because an effective antenna array is anywhere from 4 miles to 4400 miles? (quarter-wave antenna length for those frequencies.) Shortwave installations are huge to start with, the ELF installations are AFAIK only used for military COMMs (very low BW sub comms, forex.) The military ELF antennas are not quarter wave, but still huge (56 miles total in Michigan, 28 miles in Wisconsin.)

They are also very slow.. the 76 hz ELF system delivers about 3 characters every 10 minutes, and still only good to about 350-400 ft depth. There've been tests with even lower frequencies.

http://www.vlf.it/submarine/sbmarine.html
http: //hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/LisaWu.shtml
http: //www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/elf.html

Goodie, more power in the air! (3, Interesting)

bo0ork (698470) | about 10 years ago | (#8874668)

Luckily, no-one has proved that high-frequency constant radiation is bad for your health. Yet.

BPL (2, Insightful)

Ice Station Zebra (18124) | about 10 years ago | (#8874671)

Let's hope this kills BPL. After all why do you need wires when you can just send it through the air.

Re:BPL (1)

buford_tannen (555867) | about 10 years ago | (#8875066)

Yes, let's. BPL was a bad idea and no one wants to admit it, so let's make sure the market kills it before it can kill shortwave.

Pure air transmission is better than dealing with a bunch of middleman equipment and retransmission anyway. (Not to mention the "last mile" stuff).

Re:BPL (1)

iminplaya (723125) | about 10 years ago | (#8875977)

Pure air transmission is better than dealing with a bunch of middleman equipment and retransmission anyway.

Absolutely. This is great. Now, maybe, we're going to see REAL peer to peer. That's what was promised with the internet...right? You'll never get that when you have to use somebody elses landline. We'll be able to communicate, hidden in the RF clouds. For real freedom, keep it mobile.(In case they try to take the freqs back :-)) With paper computers on the way, that anybody can print up in 5 minutes, this could help bring down the "Nasties"(them crazy baldheads)

Re:BPL (1)

buford_tannen (555867) | about 10 years ago | (#8876290)

Now, maybe, we're going to see REAL peer to peer.

That's something I'd LOVE to see. Saving radiocommunications 30 MHz and kicking the RIAA/MPAA/etc in the nuts at the same time.

IEEE Standard (1)

foidulus (743482) | about 10 years ago | (#8874744)

Is IEEE now going to make a new standard based on this frequency? And of course, once they do the rest of the world will have to play with their frequencies to accomidate it, but maybe that isn't all bad.

So? (2, Informative)

ThisIsFred (705426) | about 10 years ago | (#8874772)

"The new proposal would allow transmissions at power levels higher than currently permitted for Part 15 unlicensed devices."

So? It's a "higher energy" portion of the spectrum. If they didn't do this, it would stunt the range of the devices. Sorry, I'm crabby today and I feel like being negative.

Can you hear me now ? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8875049)

Well ???

Go go satellite rangers! (2, Interesting)

Wellmont (737226) | about 10 years ago | (#8875121)

"Approximately 100 satellite earth stations, primarily located on the East and West Coasts, are licensed in the 3650 MHz band. The FCC stated that wireless Internet service providers could use cognitive technology to safeguard against harmful interference to fixed satellite links."

this to me seems like internet starting to infringe on satellite radio...I'm all for it but I can't help but be reminded of the similarities in decreased performance that came about when cordless phones went from 900mhz to 2.4 Ghz. Yeah everything is clearer but you had the possibility of confussion as microwaves are turned on, two different wireless networks are running in your house...etc. Why aren't we moving towards a standard communication protocal that is scalable, instead of licensing of bands willy nilly (eg use of the satellite protocal for these wireless internet companies). Open to suggestions here.

Please, please bring this to us. (0, Offtopic)

Trejkaz (615352) | about 10 years ago | (#8875182)

If I could get the entertaining channels and ditch useless music channels like MTV, everything would be so much more bearable since housemates would never be able to put on the music channels. And if the bill was lower as a result, hallelujah.

Re:Please, please bring this to us. (1)

timmi (769795) | about 10 years ago | (#8875518)

You could purchase a ReplayTV, and remove all the channels you never watch, Almost as good...

Re:Please, please bring this to us. (1)

dzarn (760066) | about 10 years ago | (#8875830)

Apparently the music channels made you a bit slow... it took so long to click the reply link that it linked to the next story :-p

Satellite frequencies? (1)

fikx (704101) | about 10 years ago | (#8875413)

The article mentioned Satellite base stations using this same frequency, but that the new internet services would have to be considerate (or some such wording). So, is this a minor irritation or a gift with a price attached? I'm not up on the implications myself....

Whats my power limit? (3, Interesting)

randomErr (172078) | about 10 years ago | (#8875495)

I was wondering how much power can I put out? .1 watts? 10 watts? 100 watts?

Re:Whats my power limit? (1)

sjbrown (9382) | about 10 years ago | (#8875817)

Yeah, that's what I want to know too. Where are the numbers?

RC spectrum stuff is an unlicensed area, and its limit is 4 watts.

HA! There goes WPAN and wireless USB! (3, Informative)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | about 10 years ago | (#8875626)

A high-powered 50 Mhz wide slot in the 3.6g band?

That's right BANG in the middle of channel 1 of the OFDM PHY proposal for IEEE 802.15 broadband wireless Personal Area Networks. (The proposed initial deployment was to use systems that cycle through bands 1 through 3 with each transmission.)

WUSB was also to be based on the OFDM proposal.

This should throw an extra monkeywrench into both of 'em. (Possibly more into the OFDM than the DS-CDMA version, though I'm not sure of that.)

= = = = = =

The OFDM and DS-CDMA factions couldn't agree on a standard. They DID agree on a "common signaling method" that both systems could talk with only tiny tweaks to the radios, and a protocol for time-dividing the slot, so if they both ended up depolyed they could take turns rather than stepping on each other (with lots of extra system numbers available for future systems to play, too).

Then they split up.

The DS-CDMA faction was ready with silicon, needing only any tiny tweaks resulting from the standardization process. IMHO The more populous OFDM faction is now trying to delay their deployment in various ways, most involving announcements of new products to delay adoption of the DS silicon.

One of those announcements was an "improvement" to the MAC layer (requiring the DS folk to delay deployment until they can get working OFDM silicon to test against or risk incompatibility). Another is the wireless USB announcement, based on the OFDM proposal, which might get system makers to hold off on adoption in the hope of getting something that plugs into the existing USB stack.

I wonder if this is the FCC saying "Use it or lose it!"?

What about the rest of the world? (1)

motown (178312) | about 10 years ago | (#8876061)

This is cool news and all, but does anybody here know if this frequency range will also be made public (or has already been public for that matter) anywhere outside the US?

Not much use making this a universal standard if it can only be exploited in one county.

Re:What about the rest of the world? (1)

randomErr (172078) | about 10 years ago | (#8877198)

This is cool news and all, but does anybody here know if this frequency range will also be made public (or has already been public for that matter) anywhere outside the US?

Not much use making this a universal standard if it can only be exploited in one county.


Screw universal. If I can get a good standard that will allow me to cover my neighborhood I would be happy.

BTW: Zionism is Cool. I listen to Zionist Masters [zionistmaster.com] a lot.

Screw high-frequency, I want high range (2, Insightful)

billcopc (196330) | about 10 years ago | (#8876133)

Someone invent a WiFi that can reach from my frickin' basement bedroom to my car parked outside 8 feet away.

Better yet, invest a WiFi that will allow a local ISP to broadcast over a 10-mile radius so I can read Slashdot in the goddamn taxi in heavy traffic.

Re:Screw high-frequency, I want high range (1)

John Starks (763249) | about 10 years ago | (#8877020)

This new long distance WiFi you speak of... it intrigues me. Oh, wait, they already have that. It's called cell phones with a data cable/Bluetooth/infrared.

Re:Screw high-frequency, I want high range (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#8877073)

Someone invent a WiFi that can reach from my frickin' basement bedroom to my car parked outside 8 feet away.

First off, move out of your parents' basement.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...