FCC Opens Wireless 3.6GHZ Band 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.""
Re:Protect Birds (Score:1, Offtopic)
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 rave
Excellent (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Excellent (Score:2, Funny)
isn't that how tucows [tucows.com] started?
Re:Excellent (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Excellent (Score:1)
What happened to "poke"? Has it been replaced with something else?
Re:Excellent (Score:2)
These days I'd be careful not to ping a "mad" cow. Ping responsibly and find an organic cow.
Re:Excellent (Score:2)
Yeah, I heard it can hurt if you ping an inorganic cow.
Re:Excellent (Score:1)
Re:Excellent (Score:2)
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
A common misconception (Score:3, Informative)
This thread discusses a common misconception about loss vs. frequency. It is not true, in general, that path loss increases with frequency, as the grandparent poster suggests, nor is it true that the path loss decreases with frequency, as the parent poster posits.
Path loss is independent of frequency. Think about it--if path loss were proportional to frequency, no light would reach the Earth from the sun, due to the incredible path loss at that high frequency.
However, "apparent" path loss depends on th
Rural Broadband via Wireless (Score:5, Interesting)
(honest question, seriously)
Neighbors with nodes (Score:5, Funny)
They can always go to the city and go to a hospital and get those things removed.
Re:Rural Broadband via Wireless (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Rural Broadband via Wireless (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Rural Broadband via Wireless (Score:1)
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? (Score:2)
(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? (Score:4, Informative)
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? (Score:1)
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? (Score:2)
Re:802.16a wireless in this frequency range? (Score:2)
But the 802.16 and 802.20 standards will likely be the ones that will finally bring broadband all over the USA, because it's way cheaper to string up wireless tranceiver towers than to literally do the last mile connection to the residence/business site, especially in rural areas. People forget that unlike in Europe, Japan
Re:802.16a wireless in this frequency range? (Score:1)
Re:802.16a wireless in this frequency range? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:802.16a wireless in this frequency range? (Score:2)
You could have ping times that'd make the sysadmin's eyebrows go up.
Re:802.16a wireless in this frequency range? (Score:1)
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? (Score:1)
Good BttF joke
Hopefully the cordless phones will stay out (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hopefully the cordless phones will stay out (Score:1)
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 (Score:2)
Re:Hopefully the cordless phones will stay out (Score:1)
So the whole point is that cordless phones *are* indeed allowed to use the frequency range, and accordingly, interfere with other wireless devices like BlueTooth or 802.11x wireless network connections and so on.
Re:Hopefully the cordless phones will stay out (Score:3, Informative)
Job opportunities (Score:1)
Re:Job opportunities (Score:3, Funny)
Have a nice day!
Re:Job opportunities (Score:1)
Re:Job opportunities (Score:1)
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! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Satellites! (Score:2, Informative)
Covering all spectrums? (Score:4, Interesting)
Obligatory Fake Quote from article (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Does distance scale with frequency? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Does distance scale with frequency? (Score:3, Insightful)
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? (Score:1)
Re:Does distance scale with frequency? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Does distance scale with frequency? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Does distance scale with frequency? (Score:1)
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
Re:Does distance scale with frequency? (Score:4, Funny)
Penetration Problem? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Penetration Problem? (Score:2)
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? (Score:1)
Re:Penetration Problem? (Score:2)
Re:Penetration Problem? (Score:1)
Higher freq. & higher power = signal penetrati (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Higher freq. & higher power = signal penetr (Score:1)
Plus there are lower frequency bands that are unlicensed, including the ones used for RC Cars
Re:Higher freq. & higher power = signal penetr (Score:1)
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 (Score:2)
They are also very slow.. the 76 hz ELF system delivers about 3 characters every 10 minutes, and still only good to about 350-4
Re:Higher freq. & higher power = signal penetr (Score:1)
Goodie, more power in the air! (Score:3, Interesting)
BPL (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:BPL (Score:1)
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 (Score:1)
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
Re:BPL (Score:1)
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 (Score:2)
So? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Go to the source (Score:5, Informative)
SWEET! (Score:1)
Go go satellite rangers! (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Go go satellite rangers! (Score:2)
Subspace!!
Please, please bring this to us. (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:Please, please bring this to us. (Score:1)
Re:Please, please bring this to us. (Score:1)
Satellite frequencies? (Score:1)
Whats my power limit? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Whats my power limit? (Score:2)
RC spectrum stuff is an unlicensed area, and its limit is 4 watts.
HA! There goes WPAN and wireless USB! (Score:4, Informative)
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? (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
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.
Zionist Masters (Score:2)
They got that right!
Screw high-frequency, I want high range (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:1)
Re:Screw high-frequency, I want high range (Score:1)
Canada and the 3.-5- GHz band.. (Score:2, Informative)
Wi-lan's ofdm stuff is fantastic but not suited to anything other than premium business wireless subscribers - certainly not something you would use for rural residential offerings.
Anyone have any manufacturer recommendations?