World Radiocommunications Group OKs New WLAN Spectrum 69
BenFranske writes "The World Radiocommunications Conference will allow a portion of spectrum in the 5GHz band to be used for WLANs, a decision hailed as a 'defining moment' for the WLAN industry. Although this doesn't impact the US much as this spectrum is already being used for wireless networking here, this will help standardize the frequencies worldwide."
Foil Cap (Score:5, Funny)
Please reply by brainwave transmission, as I don't read this forum much.
Re:Foil Cap (Score:5, Funny)
Please reply by brainwave transmission, as I don't read this forum much.
You are filled with an angry wave of disgust at how tinfoil hat jokes continue to get modded up.
Who owns the air? (Score:3, Insightful)
Too bad God didn't GPL the airwaves instead of turning it over wholesale to the governments of the world.
What? (Score:5, Informative)
If you want more RF freedom, get an amateur license and have at it. Or don't, and just ignore the rules - either way it's not as if you were using this spectrum before, now is it?
Having a worldwide market for this stuff means cheaper end user product. That means MORE freedom because MORE people can utilize this spectrum. That means LESS crowding in populated areas. It also means even cheaper 2.4GHz equipment as the urban areas move into this new spectrum. That means rural areas (like mine) can even better afford wireless broadband.
Looks to me like this means more freedom all around. What planet are you from?
Re:Who owns the air? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Who owns the air? (Score:4, Interesting)
Intelligence can be pulled from extremely noisy signals; in some cases the noise isn't even relevant because "digital" can slice through time as easily as spectrum. Digital signal processing changes the field considerably.
Re:Who owns the air? (Score:1)
It's alot easier to partition everything into bands and hand out rights to each chunk.
Also, recently it seems that UWB radio itself may not be all its cracked up to be in real life.
Re:Who owns the air? (Score:2)
Duuuhh.. the same people who allocate "spectrum?"
It's alot easier to partition everything into bands and hand out rights to each chunk
No, it isn't. You still have to enforce the rules. All that would change are the rules being enforced.
Operating equipment that defied the rules would be a stupid waste of time because, with everyone having digital "smart" radios no one would be able to receive your b
line of sight? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:line of sight? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:line of sight? (Score:2)
I mean, 2.4GHz bounces really well off the ionosphere...
802.11a? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:802.11a? (Score:4, Informative)
And Our Health? (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:And Our Health? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:And Our Health? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:And Our Health? (Score:5, Informative)
There is a clear maximum in the dielectric loss for water at a frequency of approximately 20GHz, the same point at which the dielectric constant ' goes through a point of inflexion as it decreases with increasing frequency. The 2.45GHz operating frequency of domestic ovens is selected to be some way from this maximum in order to limit the efficiency of the absorption. Too efficient absorption by the outer layers would inevitably lead to poor heating of the internal volume in large samples. This introduces the concept of skin depth or penetration depth, a subject which will be more fully discussed for conduction losses in Chapter 3, although the general principles discussed there apply to dielectric loss also.
Re:And Our Health? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:And Our Health? (Score:1)
Most commercial microwave units run in the 900MHz range. Anything that isn't too close to water's real resonance of ~22GHz, will heat water pretty well.
The reason the resonance frequency is not used is that the water on the surface of the food to be cooked would get superheated before the insides of the food ever got to see any radiation...
TurboD
Re:And Our Health? (Score:4, Funny)
Contain Indoors? (Score:5, Interesting)
The final WRC decision on 5-GHz WLAN spectrum said countries should take "appropriate measures" to restrict use of the 5250-to-5350-MHz bands to indoor use.
Now, how are you going to do that? Around my house I detect 3 wireless networks running and none of them are mine. Don't tell me that I need to wrap my house with aluminum foil either!
Re:Contain Indoors? (Score:1)
Re:Contain Indoors? (Score:1)
This generaly gives the time to other implementations using the same bands to move to another frequency. Because, in any case, gover
5Ghz.. it is the future! (Score:5, Informative)
Due to the nature of 5GHz waves it is very resilliant to interference.
Aroung 4/5 time the data carrying capacity of 2.4GHz band.
19 non-overlapping channels compared to the 3 non overlapping channels for 2.4GIG
A true multimedia experience is possible with the ability to stream video and hi-fi audio.
I'd love to see 5GHz transmitter be allowed greater power so we could reach comparable distances to that of 2.4GHz.
Re:5Ghz.. it is the future! (Score:5, Interesting)
As I understand it, it'll have shorter range and/or less forgiving of objects in the way (less able to difract around corners as well). Fairly key in home networking!
The downsides of 5ghz (Score:5, Informative)
I'm no radio geek but...
As a rule of thumb the higher the frequency the shorter the range. Range and wall penetration are going to be much more important factors than thoroughput for almost all residental installs and many business applications. I believe the current estimate is you'll get 1/4 the range. Err, no thanks.
Its not exactly that simple. At the same distance 802.11a outperforms b. So if, and this is a big if, an 'a' client and a 'b' client are both at 175 feet or so then 'b' will get 2mbs and 'a' will get 6mbs. [80211-planet.com]
What I think is starting to happen, that is if everyone doesn't just switch to a/b/g multicards, is that 'a' has a better chance of getting business sales. Businesses can afford to put up more APs to handle the range problems and could really use the extra bandwidth.
Home users will probably stick to 'a' (or 'g') as its range and penetration is a big plus. Bandwidth isn't much of a consideration when 99% of these users will just be connecting to a slow WAN pipe like a DSL line or a cable modem.
Neat little comparision chart here. [isalliance.org]
Re:5Ghz.. it is the future! (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, there are many technical advantages of 5Ghz compared to 2.4Ghz.
The problem is the health risk associated with these frequencies. When you reach these kind of frequencies, the wavelength is so low that organic tissue will be affected.
Here [motorola.com] is a report from Motorola outlining the problems.
Re:5Ghz.. it is the future! (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything one choses to do in life has risks associated with it -- and if "bathing myself in nanovolt/m fields of 5 GHz energy" raises a risk factor from 1 in a billion to one in 250 million Extra Extra! Radio Waves Cause 400% increase in cancer!, I think I would be willing to live with that.
In the mean time, there are some simple proven ways to improve your risk factors.
Risks... (Score:4, Insightful)
eric
Re:Risks... (Score:2)
I already find people who are alarmed that waves from radio towers, cell phones, radar guns, etc etc are bombarding them constantly. They'd really flip if they knew that their tissue was actually being affect
Re:Risks... (Score:2)
If you want us to sacrifice our technology and sacrifice our way of life, please give us some proof. If you want me to roll over and play dead everytime I can't prove a negative -- you're kidding yourself.
Re:5Ghz.. it is the future! (Score:3, Interesting)
However, with pulsed radio waves that are absorbed by tissue, this may not be the thing to consider. What if the brain is susceptible? I'm not thinking about a tin foil hat because someone may read my thoughts or beam bad vibes into it, but if we really start flooding the world in microwaves, it a tin foil hat may become necessary to keep your ab
Depends on the ETSI power regulations (Score:5, Interesting)
I haven't looked at the regulations for the 5Ghz band but if it's as limited as 2.4GHz it won't be much use.
Dentistry (Score:4, Funny)
WLANs (Score:5, Informative)
airwave economics (Score:5, Informative)
Re:airwave economics (Score:2)
Excuse-me, remotely powered pacemaker!?!? You must be smoking some good stuff... As to interference, here is a good article on the Myth of interference [salon.com].
Delayed flight travelers rejoice? (Score:1)
new antennas all around (Score:1, Funny)
Did you say spectrum? (Score:1)
Or someone would patent a LED Torch emitting wave at 6.98E14 Hz?
hiperlan2 (Score:2, Informative)
Wrong direction... (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not talking Short-Wave radio frequencies, but rather, something like CB-frequencies, which can broadcast 5-10 miles from a portable handset (analog, with current bandwidth, presumably digital with a larger bandwidth could go much further) and base stations with antennas could potentially go up to 100 miles.
If you want a free network across an entire country like the US, you aren't going to do it on 2.4-5 GHz frequencies, but you could on much lower frequencies.
Re:Wrong direction... (Score:1)
Small wonder that nobody asks you....
Yikes - I just bought a 5.8ghz ATT phone (Score:2, Informative)
First Step? (Score:1)
The process of managing spectrum currently is a human one that is influenced by old men and political lobby groups. Fundamentally it is flawed due to the political concessions that these people make (latest release from WRC case in point).
The interesting thing is that the WRC seeks to control development by proxy. The policies they set only influences wireless equipme
Re:First Step? (Score:2, Informative)
dont forget the fcc (Score:1)