odog
Cable Centric Vendor Biased
Premium
join:2001-08-05
Norcross, GA
clubs: | bandwidth hungry wifi industry
more bandwidth is always better:) |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA | ;)
Mmmm...more wireless! |
|
koitsu
Premium
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
| Excellent.
One of the reasons I've refused to rely on 802.11x technology is due to the fact that the spectrum isn't regulated by the FCC. My cordless phone should have nothing to do with my wireless LAN.
So in my eyes, FCC regulation on this sort-of thing == good.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977. |
|
Unreal111
join:2004-01-21
Minneapolis, MN | Wireless
Higher the frequency, harder it is to penetrate through the wall. |
|
superdog
I Need A Drink
Premium,MVM
join:2001-07-13
Lebanon, PA
| said by Unreal111  :
Higher the frequency, harder it is to penetrate through the wall.
While this is true, the higher power limits we are allowed to operate with will fix part of that problem!!!!. YEEEHAAAA!!!!!!!. I can hardly wait!:D:)
--
»www.wavecrazy.net |
|
pacmanfan
Premium
join:2003-11-22
Mansfield, MO | While more open frequencies can never hurt, I'm curious to see if they will allow enough extra transmission power to more than make up for the reduced penetration it has from 2.4ghz. |
|
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
 ·Qwest.net
1 edit | reply to Unreal111
said by Unreal111 :
Higher the frequency, harder it is to penetrate through the wall.
This is partly true. Yes frequencies in this range can't penetrate walls but they are ducted very well by the hallways. The distance depends on frequency and the materials making up the walls, ceilings, floor. RF at these frequencies is really interesting in how it radiates, and moves through space. Be very very careful about higher power levels these frequencies are extremely dangerous.
--
"Remember when hacking a loogy
it comes not so much from the lungs but from the soul." |
|
superdog
I Need A Drink
Premium,MVM
join:2001-07-13
Lebanon, PA
| said by Transmaster :
Be very very careful about higher power levels these frequencies are extremely dangerous.
Thats probably why I am bald huh?
--
»www.wavecrazy.net |
|
not
@cnet.com
| reply to Transmaster
"Be very very careful about higher power levels these frequencies are extremely dangerous."
This is FUD. The worst that RF can do is make you warm. You're more at risk sitting a hot laptop on your leg, going outside, or sitting in front of a campfire. |
|
Fried Consumer
@172.24.x.x | reply to superdog
Wonderful! Does this mean even higher cancer and tumor rates in the user population? |
|
tim_k
Buttons, Bows, Beamer, Shadow, Kasey
Premium
join:2002-02-02
Stewartstown, PA
 ·Millenicom
 ·WildBlue
| reply to not
said by not:
"Be very very careful about higher power levels these frequencies are extremely dangerous."
This is FUD. The worst that RF can do is make you warm. You're more at risk sitting a hot laptop on your leg, going outside, or sitting in front of a campfire.
Tell that to the idiot that uses a microwave oven to dry off the cat. Boy, to think the Air Force wasted all that money on warning signs outside our communication shelters warning about RF radiation. |
|
jchull
@130.76.x.x
| reply to not
Yeah, that's why when we turned our LPA antenna on a horizontal plane, bugs would fall out of the trees when we transmit in the VHF range... and I know enough guys that have had only daughters after working on the system, including me, to put 2 and 2 together... |
|
Unreal111
join:2004-01-21
Minneapolis, MN
| I have atleast two thick walls between my router and my laptop (ceiling and bedroom wall) about 20 feet from each other. Anyway if my channal is set on 6, the signal is excellent, but if I set it on 11 or as I go further away from 6 either side, my signal becomes weak, and in the meter it says low or sometimes good at the same distance. |
|
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
3 edits | reply to not
quote:
This is FUD. The worst that RF can do is make you warm. You're more at risk sitting a hot laptop on your leg, going outside, or sitting in front of a campfire.
It gets real old when I read this kind of statement.
What you are saying is flat wrong. depending on the power levels, method of modulation, frequency, and proximity.
SHF frequencies can indeed be very dangerous.
It was amateur radio operators who discovered what at the time was called ham shack fevers. In fact before it was understood what was going on Ham's died. This was in the 1920's when this happened. To be sure the field intensities
used in WiFi equipment are far from harmful. There are Police officer that might argue with you. They developed testicular cancer which was attributed to the fact these Officer kept their radar gun between their legs, which let the magnetron, which was always on standby, radiated their 'nads with micro-waves. I personally have watched the guidance radar for the US Navy's Standard Anti Aircraft missile roast passing pelicans and seagulls when they flew throught the tracking beam and this was fair distance from the ship. Go here a calculate what would be a dangerous RF level: »n5xu.ae.utexas.edu/rfsafety/
--
"Remember when hacking a loogy
it comes not so much from the lungs but from the soul." |
|
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
| 802.16
This is a good place for 802.16 to be implemented. In this spectrum it won't have to contend with already entrenched b/g/? hardware.
Still waiting for those lower UHF freqs to get freed up.
--
Funny, I guess that old war horse was right, he said, "Isn't that why we did it? So nobody HAD to care." |
|
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
| reply to not
Re: Wireless
Clearly you have never operated a poorly grounded HF morse system...
FOLKS... DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE WORST RF CAN DO IS WARM YOU UP... It can warm you up (to boiling) from the inside out...
--
Funny, I guess that old war horse was right, he said, "Isn't that why we did it? So nobody HAD to care." |
|
jxsi
join:2003-12-04
Tempe, AZ
| Can't wait..
I'm so hyped up about this. I really can't wait. More frequencies = more room to operate on. And now that my partner's an I have gotten the ball rolling on our WISP plans this is awesome timing by the FCC.  |
|
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA | reply to koitsu
Re: Excellent.
The new spectrum will be unlicensed as well, according to the story.
I use 802.11a in the 5.2 Ghz range. 2.4Ghz is too crowded in my area, and 5.8 probably will be soon. |
|
tim_k
Buttons, Bows, Beamer, Shadow, Kasey
Premium
join:2002-02-02
Stewartstown, PA
·Millenicom
·WildBlue
| reply to jchull
Re: Wireless
said by jchull:
Yeah, that's why when we turned our LPA antenna on a horizontal plane, bugs would fall out of the trees when we transmit in the VHF range... and I know enough guys that have had only daughters after working on the system, including me, to put 2 and 2 together...
I attribute my inability to have kids at all to RF radiation I received in the A.F. |
|
eddy_tn
join:2003-12-16
Plano, TX
| reply to Transmaster
Thanks for this information; I am a ham, and RF safety knowledge and application is essential for passing the exams and ensuring compliance with FCC rules for operating. I did a search on google for "shack fever" rf and variants and didn't get any relevent matches. Can you point me in a direction to research this?
Thank you,
eddy |
|
