Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

No AirPort for the French?

Posted by Roblimo on Fri Sep 24, 1999 11:11 PM
from the localization-is-more-than-doc-translation dept.
First Person writes "Following on the heels of the Apple 'Lethal Weapon G4' ads, the French military may prevent Apple'sAirPort wireless system from being sold in France. According to this article, the 2.4-GHz frequency is reserved for the army. Equipment broadcasting at that frequency may therefore damage or be damaged by military hardware. As wireless systems start to proliferate, these conflicts should become increasingly common." (The article's in French; perhaps utilize the Babelfish thing, eh?)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
No AirPort for the French? | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 151 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2
  • Re:2.4 GHz? Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday September 24 1999, @08:01PM
  • ISM band 2.4GHz by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday September 24 1999, @08:29PM
  • Re:New World Order! Head for the hills! by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday September 24 1999, @08:32PM
  • Re:2.4 GHz? Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday September 24 1999, @10:32PM
  • Re:Translated (and cleaned up) by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Saturday September 25 1999, @03:49AM
  • The bomb icon. by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday September 24 1999, @06:38PM
  • Re:Not just Apple, but everyone... by Soggie (Score:1) Friday September 24 1999, @07:51PM
  • $30,000 fine for using AirPort by Wyatt Earp (Score:1) Saturday September 25 1999, @09:29PM
  • Cordless Phones by Wyatt Earp (Score:1) Saturday September 25 1999, @05:03AM
  • Re:2.4 GHz? Hmmm... by KmArT (Score:1) Saturday September 25 1999, @06:31AM
  • Re:Bluetooth by David K-M (Score:1) Sunday September 26 1999, @10:52PM
  • Re:International Frequency Allocation by mmontour (Score:1) Friday September 24 1999, @07:40PM
  • Re:On a related note... by substrate (Score:1) Saturday September 25 1999, @01:08AM
  • Re:How bad could it be? by drix (Score:1) Saturday September 25 1999, @05:00PM
  • Re:Shouldn't have told the Germans by unitron (Score:1) Friday September 24 1999, @06:37PM
  • Re:Gaps in the TV band by unitron (Score:1) Saturday September 25 1999, @04:28PM
  • Re:New World Order! Head for the hills! by Chameleon (Score:1) Saturday September 25 1999, @05:55AM
  • France the "joke country of the world"? by Chameleon (Score:1) Saturday September 25 1999, @05:52AM
  • Re:"You will find an inflatable life jacket..." by "Zow" (Score:1) Thursday September 30 1999, @05:58AM
  • Re:Fulltext by SpamHeart (Score:1) Friday September 24 1999, @10:12PM
  • Modulation questions by sinator (Score:1) Friday September 24 1999, @07:56PM
  • 2.4 GHz? Hmmm... by SIGBUS (Score:1) Friday September 24 1999, @06:25PM
  • Re:Not just Apple, but everyone... by IntlHarvester (Score:1) Saturday September 25 1999, @06:35AM
  • Re:International Frequency Allocation by Spruitje (Score:1) Saturday September 25 1999, @12:39AM
  • What a stupid comment. . . . by Anonymous Poodle (Score:1) Friday September 24 1999, @08:13PM
  • Not just a problem in France. by Hanzie (Score:1) Friday September 24 1999, @10:56PM
  • 2.4 ghz is used by a lot more than networking by mplex (Score:1) Saturday September 25 1999, @06:47AM
  • Re:1) Wireless ethernet cards forbiden in Belgium by the eric conspiracy (Score:1) Saturday September 25 1999, @02:52AM
  • Re:What a stupid comment. . . . by the eric conspiracy (Score:1) Saturday September 25 1999, @03:04AM
  • Re:BTW.. by maan (Score:1) Sunday September 26 1999, @01:49PM
  • Why not just switch frequencies? by coaxial (Score:1) Friday September 24 1999, @10:09PM
  • Re:International Frequency Allocation by Uart (Score:1) Saturday September 25 1999, @05:04AM
  • Re:"You will find an inflatable life jacket..." by dublin (Score:1) Monday September 27 1999, @06:08AM
  • Re:Bluetooth by glv (Score:1) Monday September 27 1999, @02:02AM
  • Re:New weapon? by Mignon (Score:1) Saturday September 25 1999, @02:58AM
  • Re:On a related note... by Mignon (Score:1) Saturday September 25 1999, @03:02AM
  • Re:New weapon? by Mignon (Score:1) Saturday September 25 1999, @03:09AM
  • Re:Apple, however... by HerrNewton (Score:1) Friday September 24 1999, @08:29PM
  • Re:Can they be stackable? by HerrNewton (Score:1) Friday September 24 1999, @07:20PM
  • FCC's job by RoLlEr_CoAsTeR (Score:1) Saturday September 25 1999, @08:17AM
  • Re:On a related note... by Soggy_Man (Score:1) Saturday September 25 1999, @05:34PM
  • Re:International Frequency Allocation by Soggy_Man (Score:1) Saturday September 25 1999, @05:03PM
  • Re:"You will find an inflatable life jacket..." by Hobbex (Score:1) Sunday September 26 1999, @04:01AM
  • Re:What a stupid comment. . . . by EasyTarget (Score:1) Saturday September 25 1999, @01:52AM
  • Re:Not just a problem in France. by EasyTarget (Score:1) Saturday September 25 1999, @01:56AM
  • Re:On a related note... by cyberdonny (Score:1) Friday September 24 1999, @09:04PM
  • Re:International Frequency Allocation by vectro (Score:1) Friday September 24 1999, @06:39PM
  • Re:Shouldn't have told the Germans by vectro (Score:1) Friday September 24 1999, @06:40PM
  • Right on! by tak amalak (Score:1) Saturday September 25 1999, @04:01AM
  • Re:2.4 GHz? Hmmm... by Godfree^ (Score:1) Saturday September 25 1999, @01:10AM
  • Re:New weapon? by Emil Brink (Score:1) Saturday September 25 1999, @01:10AM
  • Re:It isn't that easy! by dbrutus (Score:1) Saturday September 25 1999, @04:30PM
  • 2.4 Ghz bands - microwave ovens by andyr (Score:1) Sunday September 26 1999, @01:27AM
  • Can they be stackable? by gnus (Score:1) Friday September 24 1999, @06:54PM
  • Re:BTW.. by aturley (Score:1) Saturday September 25 1999, @10:09AM
  • Futuristic technology by scumdamn (Score:1) Friday September 24 1999, @08:46PM
  • Re:Shouldn't have told the Germans by Wentley (Score:1) Saturday September 25 1999, @09:07AM
  • Re:Can they be stackable? by Wentley (Score:1) Saturday September 25 1999, @09:16AM
  • Re:On a related note... by Wentley (Score:1) Saturday September 25 1999, @09:23AM
  • International Frequency Allocation done by ITU by Andrew Askew (Score:1) Sunday September 26 1999, @07:57AM
  • first one, at last by althiom (Score:1) Friday September 24 1999, @06:26PM
  • Re:2.4 GHz? Hmmm... by Mister Attack (Score:1) Saturday September 25 1999, @02:26PM
  • The conflict isn't really with the military by YRless (Score:1) Saturday September 25 1999, @03:17PM
  • Re:Not just 802.11 by YRless (Score:1) Saturday September 25 1999, @03:23PM
  • Shouldn't have told the Germans by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Friday September 24 1999, @06:27PM
  • Re:International Frequency Allocation by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Friday September 24 1999, @07:06PM
  • How bad could it be? by Joe Rumsey (Score:2) Friday September 24 1999, @06:38PM
  • Not just 802.11 by Roger (Score:2) Saturday September 25 1999, @12:19AM
  • ... by pen (Score:2) Friday September 24 1999, @07:02PM
  • Re:Shouldn't have told the Germans by SEE (Score:2) Friday September 24 1999, @08:23PM
  • Re:On a related note... by Detritus (Score:2) Friday September 24 1999, @08:39PM
  • Re:Modulation questions by Detritus (Score:2) Friday September 24 1999, @09:02PM
  • Damage? by kevlar (Score:2) Friday September 24 1999, @06:41PM
  • Yup... by Anonymous Shepherd (Score:2) Friday September 24 1999, @07:54PM
  • Apple, however... by Anonymous Shepherd (Score:2) Friday September 24 1999, @08:00PM
  • Eavesdropping and sniffing by RobertGraham (Score:2) Friday September 24 1999, @11:23PM
  • It isn't that easy! by RickyRay (Score:2) Saturday September 25 1999, @07:34AM
  • Not really the army, but the military police by Thomas Miconi (Score:2) Saturday September 25 1999, @02:30AM
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 24 1999, @08:19PM (#1660543)
    I can tell you this: we chose that frequency specifically to piss off the French.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 24 1999, @07:06PM (#1660544)

    I wonder if it's time for the FCC to relinquish control of the broadcast spectrum to the UN or some other similar international agency?

    American sovereignty was decreed by GOD and by NO OTHER. It is not within your authority, nor that of the traitorous United States "Government" infesting Washington, to abrogate American sovereignty by subordinating it to illegal international treaties which are designed to put the United States military DIRECTLY under the control of GENERAL BOUTROS BOUTROS GALI.

    The FCC is an AMERICAN agency, and AMERICANS own the American airwaves! FOREVER. Amen.


    May God grant Victory to our Cause.

  • The ITU, International Telecommunications Union, coordinates communications issues between nations, including frequency allocation. To date, they have not coordinated systems with range that is local to a nation, although the advent of mobile wireless data systems will make this necessary to some extent. So, wireless devices currently use different frequencies in different nations.

    I can't believe that Apple didn't know this, that can't be true. I used to be in touch with their spectrum-management person, though he might have left there by now. Certainly they are cognizant of the basics of radio regulation.

    Besides AirPort, you can't operate CB, Family Radio service (the little 1/2 watt walkie-talkies that have recently become popular) and Transient Radio Service (the color dot system walkie-talkies) in other countries, in general. Some countries don't want you to operate your Inmarsat or other satellite telephone, though this is more rare. In some countries you might be able to license them, but you don't just cross a border and get on the radio without checking first, lest you get a rude visit from the military including equipment confiscation or even inprisonment as a spy in some places - no kidding. Hams have worked out an international license, but they must comply with each country's frequency and power limitations while they are there.

    Bruce

  • by MaggieL (10193) on Saturday September 25 1999, @04:22AM (#1660546) Homepage
    More frequency allocation conflicts? Sure. Smile, you're on CopTV:

    from ARRL, the amateur radio organizaion:

    ARLB079 League Opposes LA County Experimental Video Proposal

    The ARRL has asked the FCC to deny an experimental license application by Los Angeles County, California, to develop a public safety video system on the 2.4 GHz band. The LA County proposal, filed August 9, seeks FCC authorization to develop an experimental system using four 10-MHz channels to transmit video images from helicopter-borne cameras to five remote receiving sites with active tracking antennas. The signals then would be retransmitted via terrestrial links to the public safety agencies involved.

    In its objection, filed September 23 with the FCC, the League called the LA County proposal a ''foot in the door'' toward gaining a permanent berth in the 2.4 GHz band. ''It is obvious from the experimental proposal that the County wishes to construct the entire system and then simply stay there,'' the League said. The ARRL said the FCC should authorize nothing more than a single 10-MHz video channel for a single transmitter aboard a single helicopter, to allow interference studies to be conducted.

    LA County already is licensed for video operations on a single 2.4 GHz channel but says it encounters operational conflicts with broadcasters. The proposal targets the 2402-2448 MHz band, characterizing it as ''underutilized'' and asserting that current occupants--including Amateur Radio and industrial, scientific and medical instrumentation--would not suffer harmful interference. Amateurs have a primary domestic allocation at 2402-2417 MHz.

    The League's objection said LA County's 2.4 GHz monitoring study was ''significantly flawed'' and ''woefully insufficient,'' and that LA County would be unable to avoid causing ''constant, harmful interference'' to incumbent users. Citing ATV repeaters and video links as well as proposed amateur satellite operation, the League said, the 2.4 GHz band enjoys significant use by the LA area Amateur Radio community. The League said these systems, and those of other amateur users, would be ''seriously degraded or displaced'' by deployment of the proposed experimental system.

    The decision to grant the proposed experimental license is up to the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology's Experimental Licensing Division. In making its decision, however, the OET is expected to consult with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, which oversees Amateur Radio and the other affected services on 2.4 GHz.

    In a separate, but related, filing on September 1, Los Angeles County and the cities of Los Angeles, Long Beach and Burbank requested a declaratory ruling from the FCC to ''clarify its rules to facilitate public safety operations on the 2450-2483 MHz band'' and to explore other spectrum allocations ''to accommodate the growing demand for public safety airborne operation.''

    NNNN

  • by RobertGraham (28990) on Friday September 24 1999, @11:12PM (#1660547) Homepage
    Um. No. Two reasons. The first is that it uses spread-spectrum. AM or FM modulation is only meaningful if you start with a single narrow-spectrum frequency. In other words, think of hearing part of a radio station up and down the dial, but not the complete signal at any one dial position.

    Second, AM or FM is really a dramatic simplification of the way you modulate signals. You are right in thinking that restricting yourself to a single modulation method of either AM or FM dramatically reduces your bandwidth, but you don't think of modulating both amplitude and frequency together; you instead drop the entire concept and modulate the entire wave form. For example, phase-shift-keying (PSK) is a popular modulation technique: think of the sin wave, then abruptly shift it forward 1/4 of a wave (i.e. 90 degrees). You can make some mathematical equation showing the equivalence with simultaneously modulating both amplitude an frequency, but the other mathematics are easier.

  • Found some more info on IEEE 802.11 and, specifically, Apple's Airport.


  • The interesting bit is that this doesn't affect just Apple or even just the iBook--the new desktop G4s can also take the AirPort card. (Makes for an easy home LAN.) AirPort is based on IEE 802.11, no Apple-NIH syndrome here. I think Lucent had a hand in developing the product, and I know that several PC implementations are on the way, including at least one product which is contained on a PC Card

    Here's the skinny from one of Apple's AirPort FAQs: [apple.com]

    IEEE 802.11 is a standard developed by the same organization that set standards for Ethernet networking, which is commonly used in offices. 802.11 is a worldwide standard, so companies that build products conforming to this standard can have their products work together. Schools often find it beneficial to use standardized equipment so that they can combine hardware from different vendors. Home users who buy a standardized product are assured that it will work with products from other companies.

    This paper on IEEE 802.11 [computer.org] I turned up might also be of interest. It contains the "Idiot's Guide to IEEE 802.11 Networking"

    So... now everyone using IEEE 802.11 is screwed in France...But what about Quebec? (j/k)


  • by Hobbex (41473) on Saturday September 25 1999, @02:15AM (#1660550)

    If you are annoyed by this, have you ever wondered why they have to have a
    light attendant showing you how to use the life-jacket and put on the oxygen
    mask on EVERY flight? Even though there are probably only one or two people who
    have never flown before and they could take them aside before boarding?

    Ever hear of a modern incident where the passengers actually got any use of the
    life jackets? Ever wonder why they do that drill even on flights that don't go
    over any water?

    Ever wonder why airplane seat-belts look like they are from the
    40s, when ones that rolled up like in a car would be less annoying and safer
    (three point protection)?

    Ever wondered why the windows on every make of airplane are exactly the same
    size? What good getting in "crash position" will do you?

    I could on...

    That electronics should actually be a threat to aircraft is a myth. Any
    such problems could easily be fixed anyways. Welcome to the world of
    regulation, my friend! These rules go back to the dawn of commercial flight in
    40s and 50s, when seat-belts looked like that, when planes actually crash
    landed on the water, and when anything that created radio transference was
    strange and scary.

    Apparently, nobody wants to renegotiate these rules because it is such hell
    trying to agree, and well, the passengers aren't complaining.

    -
    /. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.
  • by Hobbex (41473) on Saturday September 25 1999, @01:19PM (#1660551)
    I'd rather suffer a small annoyance and get home safe to see my family.

    This is just a matter of what one considers a "minor" annoyance. If getting home alive was more important to you than any annoyance you shouldn't be flying. Hell, you shouldn't have left home at all (yes, that is annoying).

    And IF electronics, contrary to what I have heard, DO cause a risk, I would be much happier if the airlines solved the problem technically, rather then trying to ban there way out of it. I don't like to imagine my life at jeopardy because people are sneeking onboard there pdas and walkmen.

    A technical solution is always superior to legal one.

    -
    /. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.
  • by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Friday September 24 1999, @08:12PM (#1660552)
    Humm so now everyone knows the freqs used by the French military....interesting

    The issue really isn't what frequency range is being used. That should be pretty easy to deturmine even as a civilian.

    What's of concern when it comes to that kind of thing is the EXACT frequency being used for EXACTLY what application (and what kind of intelligence signal is being used for said application). That's the information that'll get stamped with the big security classification stamp.

  • Re:Damage? (Score:3)

    by anticypher (48312) <anticypherNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday September 25 1999, @01:52AM (#1660553) Homepage
    I noticed that too. Maybe its time to start moderating RobLimo :-) If he posts too many poorly translated or inflamatory stories, his karma drops and he can no longer post new stories. :-)

    There is nothing in this article about damaging equipment, just in the poorly translated header from First Person. (can someone say FlameBait?)

    Inside the article there is the word "brouiller", which means to interfere or scramble. There is nothing about damage, either to the airPorts or military.

    What the article does talk about is the new concept of licensing mobile radio systems. The french have a hard enough time with basic CB radio licensing (the CBers have been fighting to keep their rights for years), and the frequencies used by analog and digital mobile phones took years to wrest away from the goverment by France Telecom, even though they were the state run phone company. Apple doesn't have a lot of clout to force a major change.

    Every radio transmitter in France has to have a license, and the administration only allows fixed site installations. With the airPort, every owner of an iMac has to get permission for every place they take their airPort. The basic concept of frequency allocation in France gives the governement (read, the military) the rights to any band not specifically licensed to other uses.

    As the article says, if the iMac is going to be very popular, and if every citizen asks to licence their 2.4 GHz airPorts, the ART will get overwhelmed by the requests. The French government hasn't the brains to realize it would be simpler to grant a license to the airPorts and make it legal, since that would lose them some control.

    And the French Gendarmerie has a section of the 2.4 GHz 802.11 band they use for their own data comms. Although France (through their rep to the ETSI) signed an international treaty at the WARC convention in Geneva a few years ago, they gave the Gendarmerie 10 years to move completely out of the band. But inside of any city with more than 50,000 population the 802.11 frequencies can be used without a license, but only by fixed stations. So the AirPort is TSOL.

    The most likely solution is for apple to offer an ETSI approved model for sale in France (or all of Europe). Then the drivers can limit the card to only a few channels, and disable the channels used by the French governement.

    the AC
  • New weapon? (Score:3)

    by Zagato-sama (79044) on Friday September 24 1999, @06:54PM (#1660554) Homepage
    Wow nice, now if someone wants to invade France all they need to do is bring in a dozen or so G4s to knock out their airforce. Of course now Steve Jobs can show that not only is the G4 more powerful then the Pentium 3, but it's also a great weapon for world domination ;)
  • by ryder (111) on Friday September 24 1999, @06:26PM (#1660555)
    Wireless networking is great, but as Apple has found different countries allocate the frequencies differently. What may be a useable frequency in one country is likely not to be in another.

    I wonder if it's time for the FCC to relinquish control of the broadcast spectrum to the UN or some other similar international agency? Or maybe, an ISO standard for frequency allocations.

    But perhaps the simplest answer is to have the machines be programmable to use different frequencies which can be assigned and changed via software. The hardware for this would be more expensive however, because it would need to accomdate a much greater range of possible frequencies, and it would bring about a whole host of other issues. The least of which being users changing their frequencies to illegal ones in their country, and causing interference with the communications assigned to that frequency.
  • Translated (Score:4)

    by Silverhammer (13644) on Friday September 24 1999, @06:33PM (#1660556)
    The iBook of APPLE encroaches on frequencies of the French Army

    PARIS (AFP) - Ven 24 Sep 99 - Paris 16h07 time - the new portable computer of APPLE, the iBook, risk to pose delicate problems with the French Army: it will indeed use for the reception of the Internet without wire a frequency of 2,4 Ghz, reserved in France with the army except authorization, reveals the bulletin of CNRS " Internet Actu " of Friday.

    Apart from 300 large French cities, where the authorization is tacit within one month, any user of apparatus in the tape of the 2,4 Ghz must individually request an authorization from ART (Authority of Regulation of Telecommunications). ART transmits it to the military national Office frequencies, confirmed ART and the rear-admiral Jacques Bizard, head of the military Office.

    Up to now, ART and the army delivered a few hundreds of authorizations to users of these frequencies. " the last year, we received 500 requests for authorization, including 195 transmitted to the army ", explained ART.
    Generally, they are companies which obtain a radioelectric network making it possible computers to communicate without wire.

    " In general, there is no reason to say not ", added the rear-admiral Bizard. " But they are localised networks. On the other hand the iBook is an apparatus light and removable ", explained the soldier.

    The case of a portable apparatus is obviously not envisaged by the texts, since the requests for authorization must " be accompanied by a plan of the establishment considered, making it possible to precisely locate the site of establishment within the commune concerned ", explains the form of authorization of ART.

    An apparatus using the frequency of 2,4 Ghz can scramble an apparatus of the army or vice versa. " Contrary to other countries of Europe which do not have this constraint, in France this frequency band is a soldier. APPLE probably did not think there. But we will not put all our apparatuses at breakage because the iBook arrives ", launched the admiral Bizard.

    " the problem was not taken enough in time ", it added. For the moment, the admiral should treat only 10 requests per week but it is likely to be found submerged if the iBook is a success.
    On his side, the person in charge marketing produced of APPLE France, Hughes Asseman, remains serene, by recalling that the range of the iBook does not exceed 50 meters and should not pose problem of authorization.

    " to receive the Internet without wire, the iBook communicates by radio waves with a terminal, Airport, connected on the telephone wire or a cable, in a radius of 50 meters. Unless being in a joint part with a military HQ, that cannot pose problem ", commented on Hughes Asseman. " We have zero concern on marketing ".

    " We will have to examine the design features of the apparatus, for example to check that the range does not exceed 50 meters ", concluded from his side the head of the military national office of the frequencies.

    The requests for authorization will have in any case to be sent individually by each holder of iBook using the Airport terminal, delivered in option and which must be launched about mid-October.

    To derogate from this legal obligation involves the risk of imprisonment a 6 months and of 200.000 francs fine, noted ART.
  • by Anonymous Shepherd (17338) on Friday September 24 1999, @07:14PM (#1660557) Homepage
    Has a serious problem then.

    Apple is just utilizing the IEEE 802.11 wireless lan technology that Lucent, 3com, and others are designing and selling.

    A new.com article tells of Dell also planning on utilizing similar technology.

    If France(and other countries) allocate their frequencies in this range for military or non public use, than *no* IEEE 802.11 specified devices can be used/sold/imported. I wonder how this will be resolved, else France will either need to develop their own technolog and solutions or they will miss out entirely!


    -AS
  • by grmoc (57943) on Friday September 24 1999, @06:55PM (#1660558)

    Many fellow geeks are probably as annoyed as I am when the airlines tell you to turn your laptop, cdplay, etc off during takeoff and landing.

    While I understand why we might to turn off some of these devices for fear of radio-interference (which is what the french are worried about here), I don't believe that a cd-player puts out any amount of strong EM-waves...

    And also related.. Certain Brazillian airlines don't let you use any electronics -at all- .. unless you're a first class passenger..

    I really want to know what the difference between their devices and my devices is! (And don't tell me that the first-class cabin is "more" EM shielded than coach... unless that fabric curtain is steel-thread, the waves go both ways..)


    Last thing: Many posts so far are along the lines of: Don't understand how the iBook could harm the french military's whatsoever, or block their whatsowhoosits.. Well, if the french are broadcasting in the 2.4 Ghz range with military amplitude (normally with lots of power!!), then the iBook's airport circuitry might get fried... Fun fun!! (WEll, those would have to be some STRONG waves, but its possible)


    Maybe next time I'll get a first-class upgrade on that brazillian airline... I wonder if the magic that happens from flying first class wears off after you step off of the plane?

  • by gwyndaf (85111) on Friday September 24 1999, @07:50PM (#1660559)
    Europe has a unified standard "ETS 300 328" making 2.4 to 2.4835 GHz available. Unfortunately in France the Gendarmerie use the bottom of the band, leaving only 2.4465 Ghz upwards available. I think it's explained here [ilink.fr].
  • 56 replies beneath your current threshold.
(1) | 2