Wireless Networks Gain Spectrum 255 new frequencies in the 5 Ghz band Hoping to push wireless broadband further into rural areas, the FCC yesterday opened up a new slice of wireless spectrum. Like everything the FCC does lately, it wasn't without its share of critics, who argue that the 255 new frequencies opened up in the in the five gigahertz band are stifled by FCC power limitations. "The problem is that the combination of the high frequency and the low power limits mean the stuff won't go far enough," says Harold Feld, associate director of the Media Access Project in this Washington Post report. The FCC disputed their detractors, the FCC's Edmond Thomas saying "I have no idea where they get their information, but the [the signals] can go five miles."
|
  ronpinImagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana | 5 miles? sure Yeah, a high-gain antenna will do wonders. 5ghz is the problem though. It bounces off everything -- even people. Still, it'll be a nice option for backhaul and some WISP applications. Definitely a move in the right direction. | |
|  | w2co
join:2003-07-16
Longmont, CO | Re: 5 miles? sure Yes I agree it is a move in the right direction. They (the FCC) must be feeling the pressure of BPL and all of it's problems. They also must have been reading the comments given that suggest this very plan. The NTIA's study of BPL will go much faster now with Manassas, VA. test site going city wide temporarily, this will put that dead horse in the ground once and for all, cremation anyone?
As for 5Ghz band, it will be up to the provider in any local area to insure that the customer gets access. This means that every installation must be customized for the given terrain etc. They could use fiber to get the signals across great distances to the rural area, then go wireless to the homes. This by far is a much better idea for all involved. | |
| | | | It amuses me that the article says "255 new frequencies" when in fact there are an infinite number of possible frequencies. All unusable for what WISPs really need to do: get through trees and other obstacles. What's more, there are new restrictions in the rules that require radios to "shut up" whenever they detect a signal that seems as if it might be radar. (Holy DoS attack, Batman!) These restrictions will force some existing equipment (quite expensive equipment, too) off the air.
In short, the FCC is doing nothing for WISPs -- and, in some cases, hurting them.
Under the circumstances -- and in the current political climate -- we must ask if this was truly a move to help WISPs or rather politically motivated grandstanding. One of Michael Powell's arguments for completely deregulating the Bell and cable monopolies (and allowing them to deny everyone else access to their infrastructure) is that there will be "intermodal" competition -- telcos with cable with wireless. So, by making a show of (supposedly) granting WISPs spectrum, the FCC adds weight to its "intermodal" argument. But at the same time, it placates the telcos and cable companies -- which are big campaign donors -- by failing to give WISPs the spectrum they need to be truly competitive. The cable companies and Bells win big, and WISPs (and consumers) lose big.
So, IMHO, it's important not to fall for this little PR stunt. We must continue to demand that WISPs get real spectrum -- under 1 MHz and either unlicensed or licensed in such a way that WISPs can afford it. Otherwise, big business scores yet another win and sews up its monopolies for the foreseeable future. | |
| | | | | Re: 5 miles? sure said by Brett Glass:
So, IMHO, it's important not to fall for this little PR stunt. We must continue to demand that WISPs get real spectrum -- under 1 MHz and either unlicensed or licensed in such a way that WISPs can afford it. Otherwise, big business scores yet another win and sews up its monopolies for the foreseeable future.
And to this all of the users below 1GHz will all say...
OVER MY DEAD BODY.
This debate has gone on time and time again. Below 1GHz is FULL. I'm not talking about ham radio (although we're users below 1GHz too), but every time the WRC comes up the orporate interests try to bribe the FCC for more spectrum below 1GHz. The legit users of the spectrum have to waste time explaining why they can't move out. This is just plain crazy.
The issue of below 1 GHz came up with little LEO's and was not welcomed. | |
|
 SarickIt's Only LogicalPremium
join:2003-06-03
USA | Won't do any good in the Hills of WV. It still won't do any good. Who's going to setup these things in mountain states?
They won't get through the hills. So it all comes down to small towns having 1 broadcast tower. These new Frequencies are going to be used for MOBILE internet.
--
Sarick's Dungeon Clipart Page
Trouble spelling? www.iespell.com | |
| | w2co
join:2003-07-16
Longmont, CO | Re: Won't do any good in the Hills of WV. Well the mountain states are better off for microwave comms, they just put the repeaters on top of a high mountain and walla, instant wide area access. Here in CO., we have many repeaters up on 14Kft mountains and they all reach very far. As a matter of fact, just the 2M machines (thats 145Mhz) can reach from Wyoming to New Mexico all from the Denver area. Now on 5Ghz it will be much more "line of site" but as long as your antenna can see the mountain you will be fine, even with low power. | |
| | | SarickIt's Only LogicalPremium
join:2003-06-03
USA | Re: Won't do any good in the Hills of WV. It's not that easy. Miles and miles of trees and hills then one tower.
There are 3 cell towers within 3 miles of my house.
NO RECEPTION. The CB would reach those locations though.
--
Sarick's Dungeon Clipart Page
Trouble spelling? www.iespell.com | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | w2co
join:2003-07-16
Longmont, CO | Sounds like in your location they would need an extremely tall tower on top of one of those hills. The provider will have to hash that out if they want to provide for your community. 5Ghz is definately line of site comms, but as I said if your antenna has line of site with the tower it will work, even with low power. Here in the front range of the rockies, 10Ghz can go for 100 miles as long as they have line of site to each other. That means one station going to the top of the mountain and the other station can be anywhere on the plains that has line of site to this mountain. It works. | |
| | | | | oldhandPremium
join:2003-05-16
Saugus, MA | Re: Won't do any good in the Hills of WV. 100-miles at 10 GHz isn't realistic. The practical limit at 10 GHz is on the order of 12-miles, even if you use 8' diameter parabolic high-gain antennas at each end. The problem is attenuation when moisture or rainfall is present. See this thread for a more detailed explanation (»Back to technical reality...). | |
| | | | | | w2co
join:2003-07-16
Longmont, CO | Re: Won't do any good in the Hills of WV. Yes I agree in some geographical regions it is like that.
However out here in the rocky mountain front range area it is always very arid and with 14K ft. mountains to have one end is always a plus. The rocky mountain microwave group has made contacts on 10Ghz beyond 100mi. The point being that the 5Ghz band is doable in most areas as long as they have line of site to the providers antenna. Yes reflections would present problems in some installations, but it would be the provider who would make sure this is corrected in any installation. So it would be very expensive to the provider to customize each and every installation. They would have to do a survey of each potential customer site and then go from there. Similar to DTV | |
|
| | | | trcDann
join:2003-11-15
Burnsville, NC | You should try to set up one of those towers on a ridge line. Anyone that owns one thinks every little tower that goes up has a cell company behind it, and a $3500.00/month budget to pay for it. I operate a wireless ISP here in the Mt's of NC (Mitchell/ Yancey Counties) and it is very difficult to get through the foliage, hills, and costs of setting up. | |
|
| | |  quibblyPremium
join:2003-02-07
Sugar Land, TX | Gue gue gue, Sheppard to Law sheep, Sheppard to Law Sheep, got yer ears on, gue gue gue | |
| | | | |  tacomaBleeding Dodger BluePremium
join:2001-05-18
Rancho Cucamonga, CA | Re: Won't do any good in the Hills of WV. Its LOST SHEEP to SHEPPARD! | |
|
 Stewy85Premium
join:2003-01-16
Sharon, WI | How long? Well im just curious....how long would I have to wait to use te new stuff and would I need to buy new equipment? | |
| | w2co
join:2003-07-16
Longmont, CO | Re: How long? Well Stewy that would again be up to the provider. They could have prospective customers purchase the antenna and transceiver equipment themselves, or they could sell a package deal that would include all the equipment, installation, and internet service for a higher monthly fee. The cheapest way would be for all to purchase their own equipment and do the installation themselves then only pay for the access to the system. This I understand would be a great task for most to accomplish, so I would bet they would roll out the package deal. And this way if there are any problems with the installation, the provider will take care of it. | |
| |  TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
| said by Stewy85:
Well I'm just curious....how long would I have to wait to use The new stuff and would I need to buy new equipment?
There in lies the question how long before the equipment
comes online.
In Amateur Radio we use these SHF frequencies as links between other radio devices, either as control links to a repeater or links between repeaters. This, I think, would be the best use in an open area for these frequencies. You would have a link transmission between two fixed positions
and then the data link would be distributed by what ever means is best for that location, wired or wireless. I haven't seen what the power levels are but with a high
gain antenna the range should be fairly good. With modern
manufacturing methods the entire transceiver can be put into a single IC, or a single circuit board. I know one thing you sure wouldn't want a BPL system in the area radiating a 5 ghz field. I wouldn't want the interference from such a system sitting in the foot print of a high gain antenna in a point to point system. With careful frequency coordination and intelligent distribution this would work. I can see a small module with a high gain antenna mounted on one side, a battery pack and a solar panel. The links below show some of the types of antennas which can be used. Notice how small they are. It would be very easy to place these devices on existing cell sites.
This all seems to good to be true, has the FCC finally done something right?
»www.hyperlinktech.com/web/hg5823g.php
»www.hyperlinktech.com/web/hg5808p.php
--
I love Irish Terriers, Low Brass, and the electric blue glow of an 866 mercury vapor rectifier tube at night. | |
|
| | A Long Way . . . Since satellites communicate in the 4 - 13 GHz band and sucessfully send signals 23,000 miles with 20 Watt amps, 5 GHz, if given enough power, could go 5 miles . . . so long as you have "line of sight," and that is the clincher!
--
"Remember, Comrade, people who are willing to destroy an efficient telephone system may not be playing with a full deck." | |
| oldhandPremium
join:2003-05-16
Saugus, MA
| Back to technical reality... In the 5 GHz band, line of sight often isn't sufficient, primarily due to the ease with which the RF signals are reflected. The problem is that each reflection causes a polarity reversal that can lead to signal cancellation by the out-of-phase reflection. As reflection efficiency is very high in this region of the spectrum, the 30-40 mile links described in prior posts often depend upon dual receive antennas vertically separated by a distance calculated so that only one antenna can receive a cancelled signal at any given time. Even with such extreme measures, high-gain parabolic antennas (typically 6' to 8') are required at both ends so that when combined with low-power transmitters, the spectrum isn't swamped for other users. The bottom line is that this frequency band will only be practical for broadband use if power levels are severely limited, and even then, spread-spectrum technology would ideally be implemented to limit multi-path anomalies.
Regarding another posting, the primary path length limit for a microwave signal is rainfall attenuation, which increases as a function of frequency. Even though a transmission to a satellite may cover a long distance, the only area of rainfall attenuation is in the lower atmosphere, which rarely exceeds 10-miles. | |
| |  FobulousPremium
join:2002-08-14
Missouri City, TX | Re: Back to technical reality... am i wrong or does 5 ghz have shorter range than 2.4gh. | |
| | | oldhandPremium
join:2003-05-16
Saugus, MA | Re: Back to technical reality... When rain is present, a 5 GHz signal will indeed deliver a shorter range than a 2.4 GHz signal. As the frequency increases, the size of the raindrops approach that of a theoretically perfect antenna. At that point, the transmitted power is effectively just warming the rain. | |
|
Brisk
join:2003-07-11
Colorado Springs, CO |  802.11B: Out in the cold
Like 5GHz needed the boost. Not many people use it.
Everything under the sun is at 2.4, including a tidal wave of cordless phones and microwaves. There's already a lack of usable Wi-Fi channels at 2.4 (only 3), and the FCC didn't take any notice.
A disappointing decision.
--
Such is the way of the internet... 0 to 60, then back to 0, then back to 20-something.VeriSign.HasOwned.us - Help Stop VeriSign's Greed now! | |
|
| |
|
|
Re: Won't do any good in the Hills of WV.
