Slashdot Log In
Senators Aim to Wirelessly Jumpstart Broadband
Posted by
michael
on Thu Nov 21, 2002 01:36 PM
from the slashdot-needs-a-wireless-topic dept.
from the slashdot-needs-a-wireless-topic dept.
JimW writes "Article at Practically Networked...A couple of senators actually have a clue about how broadband might be effectively promoted. Not that I have anything against my tax dollars propping up failing telco's by pushing DSL on areas where it isn't financially viable. Methinks the dark fiber will stay dark." Their plan calls for 255 MHz of spectrum to be allocated for wireless broadband - to compare, the band occupied by 802.11b is 83Mhz wide, with each channel being 22MHz (they overlap).
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Senators with ideas is bad news (Score:3, Funny)
Hmm.. (Score:4, Funny)
When all that wireless Kazaa traffic gives me a brain tumour, who do I sue?
Wow QWZX (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm amazed Barbara Boxer is behind this. If you've never heard her speak, it's -- interesting. I'm convinced that she is literally a moron. I'm serious: this woman is one of the stupidest human beings I've ever heard.
I can only assume that she had a staff member that thought it was a good idea and convinced her to get behind it. I'm really doubtful that she's understands one whit what she's promoting.
It's not my intention for this to be flamebait, by the way, although I'm sure it's sounding that way. You really have to hear the woman try and make off-the-cuff remarks to appreciate how stupid she is.
People like you piss me off! (Score:3, Funny)
Those who survived the San Francisco earthquake said, "Thank God, I'm still alive." But, of course, those who died, their lives will never be the same again.
- Barbara Boxer, Senator
Author: BARBARA BOXER
"We may wind up in this country going to zero tolerance, period."
- U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Well SOMETHING has to be done!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Last mile is the hardest nut to crack. Around these parts, Verizon hasn't delivered broadband to very many people (I suspect they're waiting for their competitors to die off first) and our cable provider (adelphia) is in chapter 11.
My only concern is that we need to ensure that nothing will interfere with the wireless data. 802.11 shares spectrum with too many things.
Re:Well SOMETHING has to be done!!! (Score:4, Informative)
Well to bad all 802.11 devices are part 15 devices. They can not interfere with other device but they must all acecpt it from other devices.. Meaning that if somebody's cell phone tower is causing problems, or the ham down the street is messing around with his 100 watt 2.4ghz setup and you're in his path you're out of luck.
Parent
Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm shocked, but the cynic in me says that they are just opening up more real estate to be sold to private interest, rather than be preserved for the public. Does anyone have a more in-depth understanding of what these two senators are trying to pass?
More moderation fun (Score:4, Insightful)
Insightful huh?
Let's take a look:
Ah yes, it would be much better for the government to make that space available and then not sell it to a private corpration. That way, we can all sit around and think to ourselves, "I'm glad that spectrum is open for broadband..... IT'S TOO BAD WE CAN'T USE IT!!!"
Hmm, how about you read the article? It says quite clearly what they are intending to do.
Again, how was this insightful?
Parent
FCC and possibilities (Score:5, Interesting)
"Sure, Wi-Fi has huge potential. But the spectrum could quickly become overcrowded and unreliable if it grows too quickly. Success will take two things: technological improvements and a helping hand from Washington. The Federal Communications Commission will either have to allocate more spectrum for wireless use or overhaul the way spectrum is divvied up -- an unlikely scenario given that the commission is overwhelmed by scandals in the telecom biz."
They seem to think that an expended frequency range would have huge economic impacts too.
Let us not repeat the mistakes of the past... (Score:4, Interesting)
ME
right... (Score:3, Insightful)
Reality check: you can't legislate technology into existence. It takes time, energy, a bunch of smart people, and a ton of money. These guys think they can just write up laws and somehow, through some sort of magic, companies will do as they're told. And if they don't what happens? They're penalized with higher taxes, of course, making them even less likely to innovate, and in some cases putting them out of business altogether.
If you look at it this way, it suddenly becomes less surprising that most of the innovative companies like Sun, Microsoft, and Linux do most of their R&D outside the US, in countries like Finland, Pakistan, and Europe that have lower taxes. If we want to revive the foundering American economy, we need to stop coming up with voodoo feel-good laws like this one and start cutting taxes for the companies that generate wealth.
Re:right... (Score:2)
Re:right... (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow. tps12 thinks that Finland and Europe have lower taxes?
The fact is that government has played a huge role in technology creation, and you're using a lot of that technology right now: the Internet, of course. As you say, it takes time, energy, and a bunch of smart people, and money, but in many cases it's been government programs that provide all that. Government-designed TCP/IP beat all the proprietary network approaches (SNA, DecNet, Novell, etc) because it was technically better, and it got better because of a lot of visionary bureaucrats at DARPA.
But, of course, the zealots who believe that government is inherently bad, stupid, and inefficient will ignore evidence to the contrary.
Parent
Re:right... (Score:2)
Except you forgot one thing that wireless needs: Bandwidth.
Excellent! (Score:5, Informative)
Step in the Right direction (Score:3, Interesting)
I think that we are still quite a way off from that, but this is a good step in the right direction.
Clueful senators (Score:5, Insightful)
Why Congress? Because in some cases, such as limited bandwidth, the federal gov't is well-suited to setting down the infrastructure to jump-start the industry and to avoid the result of the many competing railroad companes in the 19th century, each with its own proprietary guage of track.
They are following in the footsteps of... (Score:2, Funny)
And God said (insert congressional notes here), and then there was bandwidth!
Oh...I can hear it now... (Score:5, Funny)
Assistant: "Senator Boxer, Mr. Eisner is on the line."
Boxer: "Hello Michael, what can I do for you today?"
Eisner: "Hi Barb, sorry for the interruption, but I saw something in the paper today about one of your new projects that has me concerned."
Boxer: "Yes Michael, what was that?"
Eisner: "Oh, its that silly wireless broadband idea. Now I'm sure one of your goofy genX aids tricked you into this so I'm not gonna be mad at you this time, but I do need to remind you about our little, er... training session we held last summer in the Bahamas. You remember it don't you?"
Boxer: "Wee'llll... I sorta"
Eisner: "No problem... I'll just help you remember this again. Now repeat after me, Barb...
DRM, Good!, Broadband, BAD!
DRM, Good!, Broadband, BAD!
DRM, Good!, Broadband, BAD!
DRM, Good!, Broadband, BAD!
DRM, Good!, Broadband, BAD!
There. That should holld you for another six months or so Barb. Thanks for taking my call.
Boxer: "OK, Michael, I'll try harder to remember."
hey... (Score:2, Insightful)
Too bad... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Too bad... (Score:3, Interesting)
Davis won because of the "worst of two evils" principle, he's a criminal, but Simon came off looking like one as well. We would have had a Republican Governor if even a mildly better candidate had arrived (like the LA Mayor, I forget his name)
Also, Condolezza Rice is a California resident, it's possible that she would run for Barbara Boxer's Senate seat in 2004 (unless she's busy running as VP, which I doubt)
better subject (Score:2)
This is a Great idea! (Score:5, Interesting)
Unlicensed (a commons) but technically regulated (so we don't have bozos with 100 Watt access points) open spectrum is just what we need to help get around the layers of control that are slowly enveloping the internet. It wouldn't hurt to try to do an end run around the IP4 address limit at the same time, and try to get IP6 compatible devices.
--Mike--
RIAA (Score:2)
RIAA: Rural Internet Access Authority
Wonder how the RIAA feels about it...
I node this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Security (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's say I pay $x / month for this service - what's to stop Jo Schmoe next door using my "frequency" for nothing. Experience with 802.11b, or whatever, is slowly teaching us that wireless is not as secure as fibre / cable.
And how much infrastructure will this take to implement? And at what cost? If it's not economically sound to lay cable will it make sense to put up enough satellites / balloons / repeater towers to cover the whole of the US - I mean there isn't even have full cell phone coverage yet!
Finally! (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess my point here is that maybe people should focus on talking to representative such as Allen, Boucher, and maybe Boxer when it comes to overturning laws such as the DMCA and to defeating the upcoming ones that are far worse.
Dunno, it's just a thought.
Previously experimented with... (Score:4, Interesting)
I haven't read yet about any conclusions drawn from that experiment though.
From the sound of this article, the FCC chair back then was hesitant to give something away for free that would raise billions for him in sales, but did so to see if it would have a positive impact on the eceonomy. If their weren't great results (documentable), these senators have their work cut out for them.
Please Pick an Appropriate Band (Score:3, Insightful)
Hopefully this will be structured to give competition to the telcos and not merely end up being spectrum purchased by the telcos.
This is real! 2100MHz +/- or MMDS may be the range (Score:5, Informative)
I think the easiest method to find 255MHz in the sub 6000MHz range would be to boot the owner/non-operators out of MMDS space, but there was also some talk about 2100MHz +/-
On the other hand, there is some mil stuff in the 3500MHz range that is pretty darned close to retirement - just take a look at http://www.alvarion.com and see the 3.5 GHz OFDM product
Link to the proposed legislation (Score:3, Informative)
Proposed bill [senate.gov]
Freeside is promising an analysis of the bill as well, but it's not up yet.
A better title... (Score:5, Funny)
No surprise...Boxer and Allen were paid off by.... (Score:3, Informative)
Considering that Barbara Boxer has taken $40,500 in payoffs from AOL already this year [opensecrets.org] is one indication of why she is pushing this.
George Allen is no better. $26,150 from Verizon and $22,000 [opensecrets.org] buys his support.
Senators take more payoffs than they actually "get it"
Wide Spectrum (Score:3, Funny)
The Proper Way To Jumpstart Broadband (Score:4, Interesting)
Your local DSL company knows they can charge $49.95 forever for DSL. They know that they don't have to invest in upgrading infrastructures that could threaten their phone revenue. They know they can stall competitive DSL providers by overcharging and underserving them. It's just too easy for a baby bell to sit on the status quo.
On the other hand, some communities around the world have bypassed the phone companies and installed fibre and/or high speed metropolitan networks. Those areas have cheap, fast, always-on Internet service.
The proper way to stimulate Broadband adoption is to take ownership of the telecommunications infrastructure away from the Baby Bells and give it to each city. Then, each city can invest in the infrastructure that makes the most sense for them (microwave perhaps for remote counties; fibre for urban centers). Competing Internet Service providers (and baby bells too) will have fair, equal access to each house and building in the city. Your local city will invest in upgrading its infrastructure to provide a competitive advantage to encourage people to move in and provide tax revenue. Taxes which currently are used to force the baby bells to provide universal telephone service can be repurposed to aid development in poor counties.
Have I overlooked anything?
Re:The Proper Way To Jumpstart Broadband (Score:3, Interesting)
Yup one little thing, your proposing that control be turned over to cities for investment when the proposal is that this spectrum be unregulated for the purpose of enhancing rural access.
The cities have no interest in improving rural access, quite the reverse.
The real upsetter I'm seeing the proposal to free up (unregulate) spectrum is not if it will work, but what happens if it does work.
My impression (and of course I could easily be wrong) is that they expect the wireless rural broadband to be developed adhoc much the way 802.11 has in some cities with groups creating communities of shared resources to the traditional broadband world of xDSL and Cable.
It could work, and in the process drive a stake through the heart of the traditional BB providers, as well as Baby Bells and the final nail in the coffin of the LD companies.
Why? Well it doesn't take a lot of bandwidth to do VOIP tunneling out of a 11+Mb wireless connection.
It's obvious! (Score:3, Funny)
The way to promote broadband is by passing the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act [loc.gov]! Why, it's right there in the title!
</SARCASM>
What about MMDS/ITFS Spectrum (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a list of available spectrum for wireless networking:
2400-2483 MHz ISM Band (83MHz)
2500-2686 MHz MMDS/ITFS(186MHz)
5150-5350 MHz U-NII (200MHz)
5725-5825 MHz U-NII (100MHz)
Let's do some addition here:
83 + 186 + 200 + 100 = 569 MHz
Isn't 569 more than 255? It was the last time I checked, unless something profound has happened in the world of mathematics since the last time I bought a calculator.
Granted, they are calling for 255MHz of *contiguous* spectrum. But, this is also pretty damn stupid. If you want a full duplex system with only one antenna, you have to arrange things so that your transmitter is invisible to your receiver, or else you'll transmit into your receiver and blow it up, or desensitize it badly. There are two ways to do this: guard band and filtering. Guard band is the spacing between your transmit and receive channels. Filtering gets ridiculously expensive as the guard band decreses. At 2.5GHz, even 50MHz is so small that a decent duplexer costs $50. That's too expensive for CPE, period.
Currently, most consumer 802.11b equipment has two antennae, usually one connected to the external connector for receive, and an internal antenna for transmitting, just to avoid an expensive duplexer. For last-mile-or-three fixed wireless, it's too expensive to have two antennae
So, you see this problem isn't as simple as passing a bill... as the poster states, the senators have a clue. The truth is, they don't. Having contiguous spectrum doesn't help, it only makes the problem more difficult and actually DECREASES the amount of spectrum you can use. The U-NII band is set up perfectly for last-mile stuff. 425MHz between two large chunks of spectrum.
Think, McFly, Think!
Re:What about MMDS/ITFS Spectrum (Score:3, Informative)
As for full duplex, no one said both tx and rx have to be within this new band. You could use the lower U-NII band and the new band at the same time or something similar.
Re:Why use tax dollars for this? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not seeing evidence of tax dollars being used to build the infrastructure; just making it possible for someone (private corp., maybe) to do so.
Parent
Re:Why use tax dollars for this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, you'll probably end up facing corp greed Vs gov't invasion of privacy (and greed). Sometimes corps are the lesser of two evils though.
Re:Why use tax dollars for this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why use tax dollars for this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Why use tax dollars for this? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why use tax dollars for this? (Score:2, Interesting)
Because they're not doing much about it as it is. Not that I disagree with you in questioning why get the govt. needs to be involved, but the telco's/ISP's/what-ever do need a kick in the ass, it seems. If some of the tax I pay helps me get off my 56k, and gives the telco's a wake-up call, then sure, I'll blow the extra little bit per paycheck.
But that's just me, of course...
Re:Why use tax dollars for this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Why use tax dollars for this? (Score:2, Insightful)
Not that this has anything to do with the article, which is just about opening up spectrum for use.
not just laptops (Score:2)
Uhm... (Score:2, Funny)
Has this ever been not possible?