<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>Re: Links to more details about the interference study in </title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20174092</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 18:08:26 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 18:08:26 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: Links to more details about the interference study</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20177789</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/594412"><b>TKJunkMail</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  Kearnstd <A HREF="/useremail/u/567879"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>well what we need to do is crank up a WiMAX network full wattage and see what happens.<br><br>what is C-Band still used for btw?  i know that home owners no longer tune it as the big 1m dish is dead.<br> </div>Businesses; military; cable companies.<br><small>--<br><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/bqv2h"><b>My BLOG ..</b></a><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/2a9xcb"><i> .. Internet News ..</i></a><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/yz8xto"><b> .. My Web Page</b></a></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20177789</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:48:39 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Links to more details about the interference study</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20176734</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/567879"><b>Kearnstd</b></A> : well what we need to do is crank up a WiMAX network full wattage and see what happens.<br><br>what is C-Band still used for btw?  i know that home owners no longer tune it as the big 1m dish is dead.<br><small>--<br>[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20176734</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2008 23:14:57 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Links to more details about the interference study</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20174653</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/348012"><b>cmaenginsb</b></A> : No, they did regulate the new 3.65 band to prevent it's use near large concentrations of C-band usage such as los angeles.  ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20174653</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2008 15:45:28 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Links to more details about the interference study</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20174423</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1512196"><b>ureihcim</b></A> : "The interference was obtained when the WiMax radios were tested on the higher frequencys that C-Band uses"<br><br>Exactly.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20174423</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2008 14:48:04 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Links to more details about the interference study</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20174375</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/612876"><b>gaforces</b></A> : From what I can gather, without paying for a new scientist subscription, the frequency that WiMax will be operating in the US will not interfere with C band satellite.<br><br>The interference was obtained when the WiMax radios were tested on the higher frequencys that C-Band uses, which they can run on but wont.<br><small>--<br>There is no greater sign of a general decay of virtue in a nation, than a want of zeal in its inhabitants for the good of their country. ~ Joseph Addison</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20174375</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2008 14:38:22 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Links to more details about the interference study</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20174092</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1512196"><b>ureihcim</b></A> : After reading the report, it more than likely sounds as if they are also trying to include other forms of terrestrial based systems in the mix.<br><br>But also according to the report BWA is operating on the same frequency range as the CB for it's satellite downlinks. <br><br>On Wikipedia:<br><br>"The 5.4GHz band (5.15&acirc;&#128;&#147;5.35/5.47&acirc;&#128;&#147;5.725/5.725&acirc;&#128;&#147;5.875 GHz) is used for IEEE 802.11a WIFI and cordless phone applications, leading to occasional interference with C band weather radars."<br><br>So it's clearly a frequency issue in other countries, as C-band operates here in a lower frequency, and the current set frequencies for WiMAX are 2.5GHZ and not 3.4-5.4Ghz which is what C-band operates.<br><br>In short, the terrestrial signal from the WBA is overpowering the CB signal and is causing the receiver to go apeshit because they are both operating on the same frequency range.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20174092</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2008 13:32:14 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Links to more details about the interference study</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20173941</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/594412"><b>TKJunkMail</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  sporkme <A HREF="/useremail/u/168864"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>Did the FCC not see this coming, or have they closed down all their engineering operations in favor of lawyering and disbursement of lobbying funds?<br> </div>In a small defense of the FCC, a working group of the <A HREF="http://www.itu.int/net/home/index.aspx">ITU</a> OK'd a compromise using Wimax and other terrestrial broadband frequencies after years of wrangling between the sat industry and ground based wireless firms. They split up frequencies to theoretically avoid interference. The latest studies seem to indicate that even though the C-Band and Wimax don't share the same frequencies, that interference is still taking place anyway from adjacent frequency bands. The <A HREF="http://www.itu.int/net/home/index.aspx">ITU</a> may need to revisit the brokered compromise if the latest study is accurate and no mitigations can avoid the interference.<br><br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://www.developingtelecoms.com/content/view/1035/59/" >www.developingtelecoms.com/conte&middot;&middot;&middot;1035/59/</A><br><small>--<br><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/bqv2h"><b>My BLOG ..</b></a><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/2a9xcb"><i> .. Internet News ..</i></a><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/yz8xto"><b> .. My Web Page</b></a></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20173941</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2008 13:02:21 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Links to more details about the interference study</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20173903</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/168864"><b>sporkme</b></A> : Did the FCC not see this coming, or have they closed down all their engineering operations in favor of lawyering and disbursement of lobbying funds?]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20173903</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2008 12:51:48 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Links to more details about the interference study</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20173821</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/594412"><b>TKJunkMail</b></A> : &raquo;<A HREF="http://broadcastengineering.com/RF/tests_confirm_wimax_interference_0306/" >broadcastengineering.com/RF/test&middot;&middot;&middot;ce_0306/</A><br><div class="bquote">The results of the testing showed that the WiMAX transmit signal could cause significant problems to a satellite digital signal well in excess of 7.45mi distance. At the extreme measurement distance, the video program was fully operational with the WiMAX carrier centered on the video carrier. However, the data BER was degraded from a nominal 10-8 to a BER of 10-4. This is an unacceptable quality of service in the digital telecommunications industry. <br><br>Subsequent calculations based on the initial measured data, and scaling with ITU criteria for WiMAX output power along with additional path loss, resulted in a required separation distance of 172mi to reduce the level of interference to meet the -10dB specification. Combining the two analyses, from a flat nonblocking terrain to a wooded hilly terrain, results show that the criteria whereby FSS antennas cannot co-exist with WiMAX systems ranges from 31mi to more than 124.25mi depending on the local terrain and the WiMAX output levels.  </div>Parameters of the testing methods:<br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://www.suirg.org/pdf/SUIRG_WIMAXTestProcedures.pdf" >www.suirg.org/pdf/SUIRG_WIMAXTes&middot;&middot;&middot;ures.pdf</A><br><br>Full test report:<br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://www.suirg.org/pdf/SUIRG_WiMaxFieldTestReport.pdf" >www.suirg.org/pdf/SUIRG_WiMaxFie&middot;&middot;&middot;port.pdf</A><br><br>Aside from the test study, there are already numerous anecdotal observations of earth based wireless systems having negative effects on C-Band systems around the world:<br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://talksatellite.com/blog/?p=6" >talksatellite.com/blog/?p=6</A><br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive07/hartshornoped_0226.html" >www.space.com/spacenews/archive0&middot;&middot;&middot;226.html</A><br><small>--<br><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/bqv2h"><b>My BLOG ..</b></a><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/2a9xcb"><i> .. Internet News ..</i></a><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/yz8xto"><b> .. My Web Page</b></a></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20173821</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2008 12:30:40 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
