 
No_Strings
Premium,Mod
join:2001-11-22
The OC
Host:
Wireless Networking
All Things Unix
Cox HSI
Qwest
Efficient
| A User Perspective As a current or potential user of all of the devices in question, why would I give priority to a radio station over 802.11b? I'm not trying to debate the licensed vs. unlicensed issue or any legalities. The example used in the article was that of a car radio and the potential for interference from, say, a WISP. I lose my AM news station when I drive under a bridge, for crying out loud! The NPR station I prefer does not come through in all of the areas where I drive. It's the nature of the beast.
On the other hand, if I were to lose my broadband frequently or be asked to give up half or more of the bandwidth - a likely result of a power cut - I'd get pretty excited. If I lose my car radio when I drive by a commercial campus where a WLAN is in use, so what? I love my DirecTV, but do I really need satellite radio anyway? Again, just a user's view of it.
--
Surf Without Strings | |
|
 | Nighttime
join:2001-11-30
| Re: A User Perspective Yes the FCC loves to do the rug pulling action esp with a company helping.
Love the grab of some of the Ham Band's frequencies to fill the needs for companies like UPS etc.
Wont get into the HDTV mess they have created. And it looks like it still on for 06!
802.11a would be better since it has the speed "when" you turn on the security stuff. "b" is a slow dog when you activate the security layer. Just wish the "a" was cheaper than 4x of a wired LAN. | |
|
bito
Premium
join:2001-10-08
Atlanta, GA | Nice work.... Cool, so when the FCC kills the compedative DSL market, they will move to the WISP market and destroy it as well. Good time to work for a Bell.... | |
|
| averagedude
join:2002-01-30
Mesa, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
| Re: Nice work.... All the markets that were not profitible enough for broadband have been waiting for years for service.
Finally, when mom and pop operations are able to serve those communities with 802.11b - then all of a sudden you see 802.11b being shut down. I wonder how much time warner, cox, att paid sirus to help keep their monopoly. | |
|
dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
|  Because the FCC sold the frequency
This is not really an FCC problem. Its not like the frequency was allocated AFTER the licences were sold. Its their problem to evaluate the frequency before they purchase it. If I were the FCC I would NOT comply.
In any event, what do I care? If they dont reduce the max wattage output, I just get an amplifier. 1w is the current limit anyway.
Its hard to tell. Hard to understand the rules now, so hard to judge what a change in the rules will mean.
--
dnoyeB"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16
The government is pricing our rights our of our reach. | |
|
| averagedude
join:2002-01-30
Mesa, AZ | Re: Because the FCC sold the frequency didn't the fcc just change part 15 (last week) and make it a crime to own a amp? | |
|
DJMADfx
join:2002-02-27
Bellmore, NY | Move Then! If the frequency bothers the people so much, they should just move! | |
|
aoverify
join:2000-12-03
South Windsor, CT
| FCC action? 55Mhz away is a *HUGE* distance. Today's 2-way radios operate with 100s of watts only 25khz or less away from each other. 802.11b typically operate at 100mw, and at a maximum of only 1 watt.
I cant imagine any wireless access point or card trasmitting more than 55Mhz off frequency. After all, 802.11b channels are 25Mhz apart. That would be transmitting more than 2 channels off frequency.
Regardless if the band is unlicensed, all transmitters have to be approved by the FCC. I cant see them approving any transmitter that interferes that far out of its band.
Also, are these satellite radio recievers so cheap that they cant reject transmissions that are more than 55Mhz off center?
The FCC is also reluctant to take action against other big name licensees. I know for a fact that NEXTEL's network has been interfering with many 800Mhz PUBLIC SAFETY bands for years now. Nextel's proposed solution is that the tens of thousands of users in the 800Mhz public safety band should relocate to a new band!
If they dont force NEXTEL to fix their problems or lower their power for that, I cant see them forcing hundereds of thousands of users to lower output on 802.11b. After all, how important is your radio? It certainly isnt a life or death situation. 
If they do go ahead with the restrictions, there is always 802.11a in the 5Ghz band.
--
Jeremy - MCP + I , MCSE NT 4.0, 2000 Former @Home Tech | |
|
| averagedude
join:2002-01-30
Mesa, AZ | Re: FCC action? the 5 gig is sooo line of sight that without extra power it will be useless to the average user. | |
|
jbrooks987
Premium
join:2000-05-27
Hays, KS
clubs:
| Good for them!! Since the inception of the FCC it has been their policy that the offending TRANSMITTING station is the one at fault. The transmitters are to be DESIGNED to eliminate that interference. Would you like it if someone's radio transmitter blocked your favorite TV show??? | |
|
| dbarc
join:2000-01-22
Fort Wayne, IN
| Re: Good for them!! said by jbrooks987:
Since the inception of the FCC it has been their policy that the offending TRANSMITTING station is the one at fault. The transmitters are to be DESIGNED to eliminate that interference. Would you like it if someone's radio transmitter blocked your favorite TV show???
I agree that the transmitter is usually sited, but that is generally if (a) the transmitter is actually causing interference, and (b) which means the transmitter is either not transmitting on the appropriate frequency or emitting spurious emissions which cause a problem.
It seems neither is the case here. In the article is says the request is made by Sirius because it 'could possibly overlap'. It doesn't site any instance of doing so nor does it specificy a specific manufacturer of causing a problem with a specific device. For the FCC to come in after the fact and reduce specs and in any way then cause not only new products to be change but require a retrofit of all existing products (as indicated in the article) seems to be absurd. I can't wait to see the lawsuit against the government for that one. Are they going to suddenly recall or declare every WiFi device, every 2.4ghz phone, etc, illegal to use???? The 'concern' seems to be a radio and a WiFi device in a car. One can't block all interferance, I'd say live the use has to decide which one they want to use at a given point in time. It's like the FCC all of a sudden requiring any 50,000 watt AM station to reduce their power to 3000 watts because if you're standing next to the transmitting antenna, you can get interferance on other AM frequencies. Sheesh. | |
|
| averagedude
join:2002-01-30
Mesa, AZ
·Cox HSI
| come on . . .
802.11 transmits with the power of a 9volt transistor battery.
Read also that microwave ovens are also stated as causing problems. Microwave ovens are at 900watts and above.
Put things into perspective 9volt battery vs. 900 micowave oven.
If your high tech. equipment can be interfered with by 9v transistor battery - well that does not speak well for the receiving equipment. | |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | I get paid for this, right? Okay, so, the FCC is going to buy back all my 802.11b equipment and pay for new 802.11a stuff for myself and my office, right? | |
|
72276539
Premium
join:2001-01-19
Atlanta, GA
| If you had invested 3B you would be protective too This is a good decision and a fair one. With the fact the frequency was unlicensed it allowed 802.11 developers not to give a rats ass where things ended up. This allowed them to use brute power instead of engineering a solution. Now they can't do that, they'll just have to go back to the drawing board. Good job FCC.
--
»www.geocities.com/anubisracing | |
|
|
aoverify
join:2000-12-03
South Windsor, CT
| Re: If you had invested 3B you would be protective too said by Anubis:
the fact the frequency was unlicensed it allowed 802.11 developers not to give a rats ass where things ended up.
Right.
As long as it wasnt outside the spectrum. I cant imagine engineers sitting down saying "Gee, we are allowed to do whatever we want in the 2.4Ghz range, lets bugger up 2.3Ghz as well".
I fail to believe that every 802.11b device can be so shoddy as to interfere with transmissions in an different bandsplit. I also doubt that the 802.11b spec is to blame. If there is a single model or manufacturer that is causing a problem, single them out and bitchslap them. | |
|
| |
72276539
Premium
join:2001-01-19
Atlanta, GA
| Re: If you had invested 3B you would be protective too It doesn't have to be everyone though... if the most popular 802.11 devices bleed over and cause problems then you have a serious issue. I am sure 95% of the engineers take steps to keep things tidy, but all it takes is a small minority to screw up a 3B dollar investment. Fix things now and take care of the problem now and you won't have it in the future and we all can have a sing-a-long!
--
»www.geocities.com/anubisracing | |
|
| 
superdog
I Need A Drink
Premium,MVM
join:2001-07-13
Lebanon, PA
| As a WISP I can tell You first hand that developers do give a "rats ass" as they have no choice in the matter as every single device that emits RF in the 2.4 band has been certified by the FCC.The ONLY way an 802.11b device will cause problems in another band is if it has been modified by the end user and that is a problem no matter what kind of product we are talking about!!!!!(Take a look at "Tim the tool man"hehehe!).What Sirius(Sat. Co.) is asking is the same as me going out and buying a ##@! lawn mower for 3 billion$$ and then watching my neighbor cut his grass with a $1500 unit from Walmart and getting really P.O. because his works better!!!.If You are STUPID enough to spend that much in the first place without doing any upfront research than tough S#!T!!!!!!,But then again,I understand because this is how it always works,it does not matter if You have a valid argument or not,its how much clout You have in Washington!.Once again everyone will pay for one person's(or Companies)mistake.When is the last time that You heard a couple of a million Americans screaming about the fact that they could not get the same radio station from coast to coast???,thats right!,Ya didn't,but I know for a fact there are at least that many screaming for broadband and they can't get it!!!!!
--
Think Fast-take chances! | |
|
jcnnghm
join:2001-08-29
Severna Park, MD
| Another User Perspective Seems like the FCC has been playing the Telco's game a lot lately. Is this really to help the radio companies, or is this to help get the telco's monopoly back. It looks to me that a single satellite company, should not be able to bully all of the WISPs and 802.11x manufacturers out there, especially when the installed base of 802.11x greatly outnumbers the installed base of satellite radios. | |
|
claudeo
join:2000-02-23
Redmond, WA
| Bad math 2.4GHz - 2.35GHz = 65MHz, not 55MHz. Somebody's been smoking too much worthless Enron stock.
Anyway, the real problem is out of band transmission and reception, not power. It's hard to believe that modern engineering designs do not exist to constrain transmission by the 2.4GHz spectrum devices, as well reception by the 2.3GHz spectrum to a narrow channels without giving up signal strength. Of course it may require slightly better hardware, and that may add a few cents to the cost of each device... | |
|
| 
a
@attbi.com | Re: Bad math 1000mhz=1ghz
2400mhz=2.4ghz
2350mhz=2.35ghz
that is a difference of 50mhz
I think the previos guss was closer | |
|
| | NunyaBidness
God Bless All Of Us
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Memphis, TN
|  Re: Bad math
said by a:
1000mhz=1ghz
2400mhz=2.4ghz
2350mhz=2.35ghz
that is a difference of 50mhz
I think the previos guss was closer
um
isnt 1ghz really 1024mhz?
and wouldnt that make the difference a lil more than 50 mhz?
--
Nunya Bidness | |
|
| | | pierce2
join:1999-09-22
Santa Cruz, CA | Re: Bad math no, 1Ghz is 1,000,000,000 Hertz.
however, '2.4Ghz' is actually range of frequencies, from 2.4000 to 2.4835 GHz. Ditto, the "2.35" stuff is probably a band in that general area. | |
|
c
@attbi.com | Splitting Hairs??? um...
It doesn't work that way; but if it did, the answer would be:
2.4GHz - 2.35GHz = .05GHz
.05GHz * 1024MHz/1GHz = 51.2MHz | |
|
| 
Anubis Prime
join:2001-06-01
Indianola, PA | Re: Splitting Hairs??? Why is there this 1024???
Mhz and Ghz are base 2???
I thought they were multipliers of 10?
1024 is for memory | |
|
| | pvbbdotnet
join:2001-04-12
Fairfield, CA | Re: Splitting Hairs??? Hz is an expression of 1/frequency, where frequency is the number of oscillations per second. This has *nothing* to do with base 2 anything. | |
|
| | | 
wolverinefan
Let's Go Blue
join:2001-06-13
Walled Lake, MI
| Re: Splitting Hairs??? said by pvbbdotnet:
Hz is an expression of 1/frequency, where frequency is the number of oscillations per second. This has *nothing* to do with base 2 anything.
No, Hz is a measurement of frequency, or cycles per second. It is 1/period. | |
|
| 
DrTCP
Yours truly
Premium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX | 1024 has no place in the metric system of units.
1Ghz = 1,000Mhz = 1,000,000Khz = 1,000,000,000Hz
1024 is only used for computer memory. It would be best if it was not used at all. | |
|
|
richb01803
Rich
join:2001-02-14
02100
|  It's already weaker than it should be
And the FCC is worried about satellites flying by 200 miles up?
Gimme a break!
(I realize this is an oversimplified assessment, the arguments posted above are better.)
However, regardless of the technical arguments: this FCC listens to only one thing, and that's corporate MONEY. Clout at that level is dependent solely on which constituency has more money, the wi-fi folks or the satellite-radio folks. | |
|
| Betingv
join:2002-03-18
mexico |  Re: It's already weaker than it should be
| |
|
2468who do we
@verizon.ne | Idiots All of this retarded hertz crap hurts my eyes. Frequency is not figured on a base 2 system. Goto Howstuffworks.com and learn something. | |
|
|
superdog
I Need A Drink
Premium,MVM
join:2001-07-13
Lebanon, PA
| Re: Idiots
--
Think Fast-take chances! | |
|
| 
ksw_92
join:2001-05-13
La Verne, CA | School motto:
"Fore years ago I kuldnt spell 'enginer' and now I are one!" | |
|
cq cq
@vigoris.net
| Don't Care First come, first serve and they have the Lic..
Its a shared band. You can't cause harmful Interference
to other stations on a shard band. Its like a leaking
cable system creating Interference to me in the 144khz to
148khz. They are in the wrong and need to fix it. That part of the 2 meter band is for hams. Hams have priority
in that section. I'm in agreement with Sirius. I can even transmit on that band but I do not dare cause problems
because I would be a secondary station. | |
|
| |
| | |
whizkid3
Premium,MVM
join:2002-02-21
Queens, NY
·Earthlink Cable Mo..
| Should be easy
Should be easy, and will not affect your existing or future 802.11b communications at all, except to possibly improving them. Many posts I have read here, mistakenly believe that this will lower the power (and thus the bit rate) of their 802.11b communications (in band). According to the 'Wireless News' article, this requirement only affects 'out of band' emissions (and rightly so). If equipment is causing interference, it must be fixed - thats what out-of-band emissions are, interference. (Even if satellite radio sucks, and should be interfered with.)
Why will it be easy; it simply requires a better filter in the 802.11b equipment. This may sound like more money, etc. In reality, most of these devices are using digital filters. Just change the filter algorithm (the software), and you have solved the problem, and quite possibly improved the 802.11b communications as well. If the filtering algorithms are hard-coded into the chip, than it requires a slightly redesigned chip. These chips are being redesigned all of the time; what is one more bug fix? BTW, reducing the power of these spurious emissions, MAY, increase the power available for the intended 802.11b communications.
My guess is that most equipment that is up to 802.11b or bluetooth standards have little or no problem at all, and may already meet this standard. There is a lot of cheap 2.4GHz garbage on the market, and it will be this stuff that must be (and should be) fixed. Unfortunately, a lot of this garbage will take more fixing than simply modifying a digital filter. BTW, the FCC is not requiring you to turn in all of your purchased gear for testing and destruction.
None of this will kill, or even harm, the wireless industry (unless Mr. Leary believes that prices will go up or demand will somehow go down. Can't see it happening in this industry, where prices continue to fall daily.) It may put shoddy manufacturers out of business, which will only improve our wireless products. Or perhaps Mr. Leary believes that wireless is the only important industry, and as such should be allowed to go back to spark-gap transmitting technology?
Now, fess up; how many of you have have wireless access points in your car, with linear amps attached? | |
|
|
|
|
·
·
Since Microwave Ovens have been around for Years Sirius ought to fix their problem and not Blame It on Others! Me I'd like to see 802.11a as It could be mounted on the cell phone towers one would think. Is there an 802.11 type frequency that isn't line of sight? What about 802.11g?