 
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. | |
|
 | russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA | 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. | |
|
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
| Re: Wireless 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 | Re: Wireless 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. | |
|
| | 
Fried Consumer
@172.24.x.x | Wonderful! Does this mean even higher cancer and tumor rates in the user population? | |
|
| |
| |
superdog
I Need A Drink
Premium,MVM
join:2001-07-13
Lebanon, PA
| Re: Wireless 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
| "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. | |
|
| | | 
tim_k
Buttons, Bows, Beamer, Shadow, Kasey
Premium
join:2002-02-02
Stewartstown, PA
 ·Millenicom
 ·WildBlue
| Re: Wireless 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
| 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
| Re: Wireless 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. | |
|
| | | | |
necro-2607
@telus.net | Re: Wireless that's actually probably due to your network card, by default a lot of the WiFi cards are set to use the most transmitting power for the middle channels and lessen the power towards the lower or higher end of the unlicensed 2.4ghz band... | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
1 edit | Re: Wireless A gigantic problem we see at the VA is radar operators coming down with cataracts much earlier in life then normally expected.
--
"Remember when hacking a loogy
it comes not so much from the lungs but from the soul." | |
|
| | |
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
 ·Qwest.net
3 edits | 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." | |
|
| | | | eddy_tn
join:2003-12-16
Plano, TX
| Re: Wireless 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 | |
|
| | | | |
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
1 edit | Re: Wireless said by eddy_tn :
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 relevant matches. Can you point me in a direction to research this?
Thank you,
eddy
You bet...go here this is the best on line source I could find. »www.ieee.li/pdf/viewgraphs_rf_safety.pdf
This issue started in the days of the spark-gap transmitters. go here to listen to what such a transmitter sounded like »www.qsl.net/vk7ro/ this is about what a person would have heard 100 years ago from the doomed HMS Titanic. Very little was know about RF fields. Nothing was know about the ability of strong RF fields to heat tissue. The transmitters of the time, by modern standards where awful, harmonics all over everything, and radiating very strong RF fields. Radio operators, Marconi Boys, and Ham's where coming down with mysterious fevers. I have read of operators having temperatures as high a 104 degrees F. Some of these men died when they slowly cooked themselves in their radio Shacks. What is interesting about this when the cause of these fevers was finally discovered the Diatherm machine was invented using what was learned here.
--
"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
| 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." | |
|
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." | |
|
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.  | |
|
chovy74
@comcast.net
| So what does this mean? So what exactly can I expect?
I'm waiting for the day when the Internet is available freely in mountaineous, rural america at high speeds via WIFI. Much like TV via airwaves is today.
In fact, I'm somewhat surprised cell phone towers cannot also broadcast the internet in highspeed fashion. Seems like the infrastructure is already in place.
Is the range limited?
Is the speed limited? | |
|
| silicon dog
join:2003-01-01
O Fallon, MO | Re: So what does this mean? they do..its called "wireless dsl" in these parts...but still has los problems ect ect... | |
|
| |
chovy74
@comcast.net | Re: So what does this mean? Hmmm. I went to the AT&T store to try and find out, they do have some wifi card you can plug into your laptop, and then it connects to a 128k connection over gsm network.
The monthly fee was something like $80, and the card was $199. | |
|
|
|
|
