 | 
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs: 
| Don't cater to more corporate cry-babies Reading this article, my first thought was this:
If these guys (Sirius and XM)were so worried about this interference within this frequency band, then why didn't they choose to license some frequency band of their own?
They frequency in which they operate is an unlicensed frequency band, yet they wish the FCC to regulate the use of it in their favor. It's ridiculous. Your 2.4ghz cordless phone works in this range. Other companies, such as my present employer, deploy a product using this unlicensed frequency range.
What this argument amounts to is the same as someone wishing the FCC to dedicate a portion of or to regulate the use of a band within the CB (citizen's band) frequency range in order to favor one user over another, and it's ridiculous.
It would seem to me that Sirius and XM are the folks who need to overcome a technological problem in order to survive...802.11b and Wi-Fi technology existed before they deployed their product.
Also, my second thought was this:
They should be more concerned about their satellites falling out of the sky before their time.....I read an article not long ago talking about how these satellites (designed and built by Hughes, I believe), where deficient in manufacturing (admitted by the builders themselves) and that they were only going to last two years instead of 5-10.
Anyway, I think their effort to attempt regulation of an unlicensed band for their own benefit is ridiculous.
--
We've got our eye on the firmaments, our hand on the armaments, our heads full of arguments, and words for our monuments..... | |
|  | | | |
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs: | Re: Don't cater to more corporate cry-babies Thanks..... | |
| | | | dbarc
join:2000-01-22
Fort Wayne, IN
| said by BrianDamage:
Reading this article, my first thought was this:
If these guys (Sirius and XM)were so worried about this interference within this frequency band, then why didn't they choose to license some frequency band of their own?
They frequency in which they operate is an unlicensed frequency band, yet they wish the FCC to regulate the use of it in their favor.
....stuff left out....
Anyway, I think their effort to attempt regulation of an unlicensed band for their own benefit is ridiculous.
Actually, the satellite radio companies DO have licensed spectrum and do NOT use the unlicensed spectrum. However, they are pleading that excessive deployment of the unlicensed devices (and WiFi isn't the only thing on that band, they want restrictions/alterations on everything operating in it, from WiFi to your portable phones) will cause interference because their licensed bands are close to the unlicensed bands and spurious transmissions can cause interference. In come cases, that could be true... place the WiFi or other device right next to the antenna and it could happen. Then again, I think you'd be arrested going down the highway sitting on the outside of your car with a WiFi node in your hand. There was a pretty good refute of their 'problems' by an engineer that said they could solve a lot of their 'concerns' by simply making their antennas more direction; oriented upwards. It made sense. It seems they're just looking for the solution that's cheapest to them; in otherwords free to them without any changes, forcing the costs upon everyone else. (The original story I read pretty much said that any device in that unlicensed spectrum would have to be recalled and changed, no 'grandfathering' of devices. I can't see that happening. Half the companies that produced them would go bankrupt doing that, which means they couldn't change the device and none of them would be fixed. Kind of defeats the purpose of Sirius and XM, doesn't it??? Besides, I really don't see that service flying where it'll be a problem. How many devices are close enough to your CAR, which is the prime objective of the satellite radio companies, to cause interference.) | |
| | |
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| Re: Don't cater to more corporate cry-babies Well, if I read the article right, the satellite companies are operating in or around 2400 mghz (or 2.4 ghz) and this is UNLICENSED spectrum.
Correct me if I am wrong concerning their operational spectrum, but I think I read it right.
If that's the case, then my argument is how they might expect to get the FCC to try to regulate UNLICENSED spectrum, with their favor skewing the regulation of the spectrum.
It seems like a selfish attempt by these companies to try to regulate spectrum that everyone has a right to use.
This is why you have everything from Wi-Fi to cordless phones operating in this spectrum.
Besides that, these companies may not even be able to stay solvent long enough to justify any of these moronic regulation attempts. They may not have enough money in the bank to bribe Mr. Powell either.
--
We've got our eye on the firmaments, our hand on the armaments, our heads full of arguments, and words for our monuments..... | |
| | | | 
drjim
Premium,MVM
join:2000-06-13
Torrance, CA
clubs:
| Re: Don't cater to more corporate cry-babies "Well, if I read the article right, the satellite companies are operating in or around 2400 mghz (or 2.4 ghz) and this is UNLICENSED spectrum."
Not exactly....It's a SHARED band, and the people running unlicensed (Part 15) devices are required to do certain things, under certain circumstances. Example....I fire up my 15W 2.4GHz Amateur Radio transmitter, and knock your WLAN off-the-air. Gee, that's too bad for you. I have a license, and you don't. If your WLAN (or 2.4GHz telephone)interferes with my AO-40 satellite downlink, I can request that you turn it off, or not use it during certain hours. Of course, the chances of: 1)Finding you, and 2) Getting you to understand what Part 15 requires of you, are both exceedingly small, so you never hear of a Ham doing this. These guys, however, have some serious MONEY and LAWYERS to do their talking for them, and as such, can get the attention of the media, and more importantly, the FEDS. I recently read a design review of their system in one of my RF trade mags, and it's laughable. It's poorly designed, the silicon they use in the receivers is NOT ready for prime time, and their ultimate signal-to-noise ratio is something like 6dB....pretty poor. So, they p*ss and moan to their Congressman and stockholders, and try to get the rules changed to allow their system what amounts to an extraordinary level of protection from existing services.
I hope they fall on their a$$!
drjim
--
One man's Magic is another man's Engineering. | |
| | | | dbarc
join:2000-01-22
Fort Wayne, IN
| said by BrianDamage:
Well, if I read the article right, the satellite companies are operating in or around 2400 mghz (or 2.4 ghz) and this is UNLICENSED spectrum.
Correct me if I am wrong concerning their operational spectrum, but I think I read it right.
Ok. Yes, it is incorrect. They do NOT operate in the unlicensed spectrum but in licensed spectrum that they obtained from the FCC and licensed to them. The 'operating IN or AROUND' is a big difference. They don't operate IN the unlicensed spectrum, but their licensed frequencies are AROUND, ie. close, to the unlicensed spectrum.
That said, I don't agree in any way what they are attempting to do. They need to develop their radios and directional antenna to reject off band transmissions much more than they do according to some engineers reports. If there ARE some devices in the unlicensed spectrum that are causing major spurious transmissions in other bands, then they, and they alone, should have their equipment adjusted and modified just as any manufacture of equipment capable of transmitting would be required to do. But to change the entire specs of the unlicensed spectrum is absurd. That's like a holder of one license saying that if harmonics from any other transmission interfere with their frequency, no matter if they do nothing to prevent the interruption in their (the license holders) equipment to reject them, then everyone has to modify or recall their equipment. (And they'd probably be holding their equipment 2 inches from the antenna of the supposedly offending equipment.)
What has me scratching my head is that this is coming up now. If I recall correctly, they aren't claiming there's a problem now, but there would be as more use the frequency in the future. Why didn't think think of this before when they were designing their own equipment or when they bid for licenses? They may say (and I believe have said) that there wasn't much in the 2.4 ghz band used at the time.. But that doesn't seem to fly. They had the history of the 900mhz unlicensed spectrum and that went gangbusters with wireless devices. It seems they should (being the operative word) have taken the nearby unlicensed spectrum into consideration from day one. IMHO, this seems more like poor planning and now trying to get out of it after spending hundreds of millions. I'd personally think they'd be better off trying to get some subscribers with what must be a huge burn rate on cash at this point. If they don't they'll go under and not have to worry about anybody causing interference from any frequencies. | |
| | | | |
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| Re: Don't cater to more corporate cry-babies Thanks for pointing those points out. I agree with you.
I think it's ridiculous also to try to make up for shortcomings in design engineering in your own equipment by trying to force regulatory agencies to force others to modify theirs.
It's moronic.
--
We've got our eye on the firmaments, our hand on the armaments, our heads full of arguments, and words for our monuments..... | |
| | | | | | 
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
 ·Optimum Online
| Re: Don't cater to more corporate cry-babies Even though it is licensed, the whole thing shows you how moronic the FCC is. You have an existing "unlicensed" spectrum that you *know* will be "dirty" (full of cheap consumer equipment that shoots out harmonics beyond the center frequency) and someone comes along looking for some space in the "2GHz neighborhood"... So they give them something exactly adjacent to the unlicensed band. Duh.
Kind of like being the proud recipient of the band right above the CB band... "Here's 28MHz, have fun! Don't mind the trucker over there shooting out a kilowatt at 27MHz!"... | |
| | | | | | |
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| Re: Don't cater to more corporate cry-babies Yeah, but is there anybody in the FCC contacting all the CB radio manufacturers in order to have them redesign all their equipment in order to satisfy the inadequacies of another vendor's equipment, just because this manufacturer whined to Powell about it?
I think not.
If the FCC allows this to happen, then it would just be another example of how "in the pocket" guys like Powell can be.
It's corporate tea-bagging.
--
We've got our eye on the firmaments, our hand on the armaments, our heads full of arguments, and words for our monuments..... | |
| 
mags2
Agent Provocateur
join:2001-07-19
SoCal
|  Catering to Corporate Crybabies
--
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. -T.J.
[text was edited by author 2002-04-08 10:53:53] | |
| |
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| Re: Catering to Corporate Crybabies Yeah, well, I choose to believe that we are NOT beyond making some sense in this country, eventually, concerning broadband and the various methods of dissemination, as well as sense in other areas of policy.
I would agree with you that mostly, politicians are in politics for the money.
However, I choose to believe that there still are some folks out there concerned more about the welfare of people more than how much money they can line their own pockets with.
Maybe I'm living in a dreamworld, but I hold out for the better......
--
We've got our eye on the firmaments, our hand on the armaments, our heads full of arguments, and words for our monuments..... | |
| | |
mags2
Agent Provocateur
join:2001-07-19
SoCal
| Re: Catering to Corporate Crybabiessaid by BrianDamage:
Yeah, well, I choose to believe that we are NOT beyond making some sense in this country, eventually, concerning broadband and the various methods of dissemination...
I suppose some would call you an eternal optimist. Personally I don't see the so-called leadership in this country making sense anytime soon with regard to anything mostly because they're blinded by dollar signs. But that's just my opinion. Call me the eternal cynic.
--
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. -T.J. | |
| | | | | | | | |
mags2
Agent Provocateur
join:2001-07-19
SoCal |  Re: Catering to Corporate Crybabies
| |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs: | Re: Catering to Corporate Crybabies Touche.... | |
| lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | Solution | |
| djrobsd
join:2002-01-24
San Diego, CA
| They paid for their bandwidth In this month's car and driver magazine, it talks all about Satellite Radio. The FCC auctioned off the frequencies, and Sirius and XM were the highest bidders.
Personally, if I was a company that spent billions of dollars launching satellites into space, I'd get pretty upset if the rules suddenly changed, and that airspace I paid for, as well as the satellites were no longer usable because of some wireless devices that people don't even have a license to operate..
Sorry, I have to side with the big companies on this one, even though I am all for the advancement of wireless internet, ethernet, etc.. | |
| | 
DrTCP
Yours truly
Premium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX
| Re: They paid for their bandwidth said by djrobsd:
Personally, if I was a company that spent billions of dollars launching satellites into space, I'd get pretty upset if the rules suddenly changed, and that airspace I paid for, as well as the satellites were no longer usable because of some wireless devices that people don't even have a license to operate..
It is the design of their receiver radio not the satellite that is problem. They have not designed their receiver radio and antenna properly. Even auto ignition noise is higher than their signal in the worst case. They did not even consider thermal noise in their design. I don't think FCC should reward poor designs because they did not care to come up with sound designs. Their systems is bound to have problems even if there are no 2.4GHz devices under Part 15 rule.
--
Austinites! Check out new Austin forum! | |
| 
Rally1
join:2000-06-12
Irvine, CA |  aa
who writes this stuff?? | |
| | | Anon | Re: aa Here is all you got to know about this subject:
How much money can the wireless networking companies pump
into Washington. How much money can Sirius and XM pump in?
What is the difference? | |
| | 
Traal
join:2000-10-19
Mesa, AZ
 ·BroadVoice
| said by Rally1:
"The radio, about the size of a can of beer,"
who writes this stuff??
They can be identified by their Rorschach (inkblot) test results.
--
/* The green code always compiles. */ | |
| 
Murphdog856
join:2002-01-04
Cherry Hill, NJ
| Satellite V. WiFi The major point is that the 802.11 devices should not be drifting so far off of frequency as to cause interference. Any radio transmitter can malfuntion at some point in it's life time but I feel a lot of the interference has to do with poor design and quality control of the personal devices that share the spectrum. I have an access point, two WiFi cards, A 2.4 Cordless phone, a portable Sony XM receiver, a mobile Pioneer XM receiver, and a microwave that probably leaks- All operating in the 2.4 GHZ spectrum without a problem. All deveices are well manufactured, not modified, and are well in the tolerance allowed. The XM receiver's haven't experienced any problems yet so I assume the receivers are well built to reject interference. I've seen different transmiters of all kinds with poor RF design that cause interfence. Although I do think that the possibility of interference potential should of been explored during the frequency planning. Just my two cents.... | |
| |
DrTCP
Yours truly
Premium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX | Re: Satellite V. WiFi Technical analysis of XM receiver has shown that their radio system is poorly designed.
--
Austinites! Check out new Austin forum! | |
|
Murphdog856
join:2002-01-04
Cherry Hill, NJ
| XM I didn't see that article but I'll believe that corners were cut to keep the price low ( I guess if you consider under $450 low). I have the pioneer XM Combo I'm not happy about the 8 digit display that doesn't scroll and what seems like a smaller buffer then the Sony portable. | |
| radionumb
join:2004-02-08
El Cerrito, CA
|  radionumb
| |
| | | |
|
|
·