Senators Aim to Wirelessly Jumpstart Broadband 211
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).
Why use tax dollars for this? (Score:1, Troll)
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.
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:1, Funny)
Re:Why use tax dollars for this? (Score:1)
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
from the OT.
--ellis
Re:Why use tax dollars for this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why use tax dollars for this? (Score:1, Insightful)
If you want something pay for it. Keep your paws out of my wallet.
In rural Colorado
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)
Re:Why use tax dollars for this? (Score:2, Informative)
No, it's just that the telcos are useless at spending money (to them, it flows like water). Case in point: Running about 100 lines 15 km alongside the already existing fibre to my subdivision a decade ago to an old, out of date, and rather overloaded exchange, rather than building some sort of mini-CO there and using that shiny fibre line.
This is the case with many other companies. Another case in point, I've tried to set up a deal with a few local companies to redistribute their wireless internet to various households here, ensuring they make a profit as well as myself. No interest at all.
And, last example is the cable co. They also run cable under our town. They decided against wiring the houses here, as they'd have to pull it about 1 km or so. So now 95% of the houses have DSS, and they have zero business.
What makes this all the funnier, though, is that the telcos, etc. think that areas like mine are full of hick-homes with people that can't afford high-speed, when the reality is that the average home in this subdivision costs $300k (and for this area, that's probably about $100k above average) and there's no apartments, and being that it is a little ways from the city, communications equipment are WELL used.
Ho hum. More stupid decisions. I'm used to it, and plan to profit on it the moment I get the cash together to put in some wireless 'net.
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.
Re:Why use tax dollars for this? (Score:2)
I would prefer if only certain bands were considered off limits instead of only certain bands being considered allowed. Setting a band aside only for broadband might not be a good idea. Look at 4.3 which was set up for anyone who needed it, If it was just a little bit bigger it would work pretty damn well for broadband. Many isps are actually deploying broadband on it anyway for rural areas.
Re:Why use tax dollars for this? (Score:2)
In the 1930s the goverment spent tons of money getting electricity and phone lines to every little town and farm in the country.
Was it money well spent? You bet it was.
You let the goverment build roads and interstates why not bandwidth?
In the end it will help the US economy.
upsides and downsides to everything (Score:2)
http://www.windturbine.net/history.htm
Aceytelene generators and efficient small home diesels. There where a variety of DC appliance makers to serve that industry. I'm sorta too lazy right now to go dig up a slew more links, but the gist of it was that alternative energywas reallystarting to take off, in a variety of directions, and including solar in heating at least, and, well, it got squashed. There always seems to be lurking behind big government projects a few fatcats with their hands out, and it's always sold as "good for the people". funny how it works out like that. Hmm, need a new war, who can we hire to build war stuff... wow! we got the same old cast of characters conveniently ready to go into triple overtime and build war stuff. Energy, same deal. Communications, same deal. These social government programs also helped establish this mindset and legal precedent that "the government" can just constanly kick people off their land to do "something". The something always seems to eventually become a basic subsidy, not for the little guy, but for some big international "deal". Sort of like what the stealth mega corps/greenie orgs/ government cartel does now with creating "willing sellers" in the rural areas by first using some "law" like the ESA to knock off a class of rural workers by virtually outlawing what they do for a living, usually based on extremely coercive and faulty junk science (spotted owl, klamath suckers, etc), this then bankrupts the people when they can't work, despite the fifth amendment of the constitution saying they need to be paid for lost whatever when government seizes their stuff, so they sell their properties "willingly". They even give grants to so called "not for profit" orgs, who turn around and use bogus created "laws" and sue people, who then get harassed by government.
I'm saying there's usually always payoffs going on and wheels within wheels with these happenings. Been going on a long time too.
Same deal in a lot of matters with the FCC, supposedly they serve the public good with their regulations, but sometimes it doesn't work. They go out of their way to bust micro broadcasters saying they cause "harm", but they rubber stamp the more or less very monopolistic and extremely lucrative "licenses" given to the major networks and broadcasters year after year, despite mega thousands of complaints they have received, and the harm they cause by mass propogandizing the news shows and by the social engineering they do with "entertainment" shows. Ya, you can complain,and it goes on record for public viewing in the circular file receptacle.
It's not an either / or, there's good and bad in these quasi socialistic experiments they do with manipulating how humans do their work and what happens with industry in general.
I think a better first step is to make null and void the local telcos and the cable copmpanies monopolies, and to rein in the FCC to it's constitutional limits set for the federal government, and that is to regulate interstate commerce as it pertains to broadcasting, and commerce isn't "all" broadcasting, and not all broadcasting or delivered/sent data services.
Just a few points. I sort of agree with you on some good coming from the standards and public works, but I also see the other side of the coin. Basically I want "government" in general to be put on a severe hold right now, as in a total stoppage of any "new" laws, a "cease and desist" order in other words, and a ten year or so campaign to review and remove the bulk of the "old" laws, keeping only the extremely necessary and constitutional ones. I know that's a wish, I'm just wishing is all, heh.
Re:Why use tax dollars for this? (Score:2)
Senators with ideas is bad news (Score:3, Funny)
sign me up. (Score:1)
not just laptops (Score:2)
Uhm... (Score:2, Funny)
Has this ever been not possible?
Hmm.. (Score:4, Funny)
When all that wireless Kazaa traffic gives me a brain tumour, who do I sue?
Re:Hmm.. (Score:2, Funny)
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)
Re:Wow QWZX (Score:1)
Bunch of shrill, whiney overreactive knee-jerk morons.
Look at Daschle's latest tirade on how Rush Limbaugh is inciting violence against him.
Microsoft sucks. Can I have my karma now?
Re:Wow QWZX (Score:2)
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.
Re:Well SOMETHING has to be done!!! (Score:2)
I wouldn't be so sure of this. Most Amateur Radio operators would not want to cause interference with anyone, and all of them that I know, myself included, would do whatever we could to not cause interference if we were notified about it. If you check the laws governing Amateur Radio, you'll see that it's not lawful to knowingly cause interference under most conditions.
It's been a while since I took my exams but IIRC, knowingly causing interference to someones wireless network could get your license revoked.
Re:Well SOMETHING has to be done!!! (Score:2)
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?
Re:More moderation fun (Score:2)
If grandparent poster's jaw-dropping conclusion is correct, we'll be able to sit around and think to ourselves: "I'm glad that spectrum is open for broadband..... otherwise I wouldn't be on broadband right now." because *any* private organization will be able to use the spectrum. Please show me how this would be a bad thing. And you could also tell me how this is more restrictive than saying only government-mandated organizations are allowed to use the spectrum.
Re:More moderation fun (Score:2)
You are wrong. Reread that bit about channel width in the story intro.
If there's a topic that you don't understand, try to learn before posting copiously.
Re:More moderation fun (Score:2)
Do you have some reason to believe that a new standard would be developed for this new spectrum that worked worse than the current standard?
Even if you were correct, imagine what would happen if we still regulated in the same fashion that we regulate the visual spectrum: You can't put blinding lights in public places, can you?
So, people would have to turn down their APs so that they did not interfere with their neighbors. If your ISP wants to broadcast so loudly that you can't use your own AP in your house, then they need to make a *contract* with you. Anything less is government manipulation, and is as reprehensible as the worst kind of socialism.
This is how the free market works when it works right. I can't begin to understand how anyone could see it differently. Please, if you do, explain.
Public Unregulated Spectrum is UNUSABLE??? (Score:2)
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!!!"
First of all, I think the rest of us are wondering how YOU got modded up?
Do you even understand how the basics of FCC spectrum licensing, or are you trying to suggest (Very incoherantly) that unregulated radio, like that being used by 802.11, isn't usable because it's unregulated?
You do understand that the success behind 2.4ghz (802.11) was that is was given to the public and not auctioned to a single corporation.
It's funny, because everybody else is excited about more unregulated public radio spectrums! Almost the ENTIRE tech industry loves it. Why don't you like unregulated public radio?
Please tell us, WHY DO YOU THINK UNREGULATED RADIO, like 2.4ghz (802.11), IS UNUSEABLE???
We're all waiting for your brilliant insight!
Spectrum doesn't have to be owned..... (Score:2)
The point is that the spectrum does not have to belong to a private company to be utilized. For example, interstate highways belong to the public, but everyone can use them.
Read about Ultra Wide Band to learn how bandwidth can be shared, just like the highways.
Re:You really want bandwidth to be like our highwa (Score:2)
The roads are a shared resource like the spectrum. The goverment doesn't have to build the spectrum, it just should not allocate it to private companies, if the resource can be shared.
The goverment should sponsor/define open standards that anyone who wants to use the spectrum must follow, and then anyone can build the equipment. Just like anyone can build and drive a truck, as long as they conform to the federal guidelines..
A Quick Lesson in Capitalism (Score:2)
Oh, now I remember.... Socialism is the answer!
This will work just like 802.11 and the Internet is working NOW.
Since the radio spectrum is available for ANYONE to use, the private investments come from the equipment manufacturers, users, smaller ISPs, bigger ISPs who want a slice of the market, etc.
This is actually very similar to how the Internet got started. Sprint, T-Mobile, and commercial wireless carriers are like the old AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy.
Along came the Internet (A cooperative system started by the government), which allowed ANYONE to set up thier own ISP and become thier own AOL, CompuServer, and Prodigy.
You see young capitalist: Sometimes the government is nessecary to get people to cooperate initially. The trick is to bring everybody at the table, and THEN let the market regulate themselves. Just like the Internet!
I know that you're a young capitalist, but you have to remember that UNREGULATED radio is a capitalist's friend.
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.
Overcrowding IS our friend. (Score:2)
Once there is an industry, with a lot of consumers, then you'll get a big push to open more spectrum for unregulated wireless broadband to meet consumer demand.
Now THAT's capitalism kicking the government's ass. (Rather than pandering to the FCC's auction process...)
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.
Re:right... (Score:2)
Except you forgot one thing that wireless needs: Bandwidth.
Re:right... (Score:2)
Dim people who post to discussion web sites such as Slashdot, LinuxToday and Hotmail, should avoid activities such as listing things, generalizing or summaries.
Or something. Whatever.
Incorrect. (Score:2)
What kind of blind eye to history have you turned? Remember the apollo missions? The great aqueducts? The great wall? Thousands of years of ingenious dam and levy constructions? Pyramids?
Often times it takes a government to declare something as a goal and to commit to it before it becomes a reality, regardless of the nature (in this case technology).
Re:right... (Score:2)
No problem; 802.11 and 802.16 are already here. All they need is more bandwidth.
Convincing ISPs to offer last-mile wireless access will be a bit tougher, though.
This is Just Expanding Wi-Fi? Nothing trivial... (Score:2)
It's just 802.11 with better range and a smarter protocol.
You get Linksys, D-Link, Engenuis, Proxim, and all the other wireless devices guys in a room, and it won't take them long to agree on a standard, especially if it means selling lots of units.
What trivial about unregulated radio being used for broadband?
Excellent! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Excellent! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Excellent! (Score:2)
Re:Excellent! (Score:2)
The 2.4 GHz band is used by microwave ovens, TV cable box extenders, and all sorts of other unlicensed devices. Phones don't belong there only because they can get better performance and less interference at 900 MHz. The recent move of cordless phones to 2.4 is a victory of stupid imagemongering over technical reality. (The first 2.4 GHz phones were priced at a premium, so everyone mistakenly thought it was better.)
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:2)
Both candidate were crooks. Davis' only danger is that he's done so much to piss off real liberals that we almost all went and voted for some loser 3rd party candidate, just to show him he needed us.
But in the end, Simon's positions were just too frightening. So we voted for Davis. And losing an election doesn't make Democracy an illusion.
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)
Re:Too bad... (Score:2)
As a registered Libertarian, I'd like to quote the GOP to you. As they said when Bush beat Gore:
"He won. Get over it."
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--
Re:This is a Great idea! (Score:1)
re: bozos - I am totally with you on that point - 100mw 'mods' to Linksys (Stinksys) APs that yield 31mw in channel and 69mw of crap spattered all over 2300 - 2500MHz, ATV amps modified to build 'super cells', and the like are giving the rest of us a bad name.
RIAA (Score:2)
RIAA: Rural Internet Access Authority
Wonder how the RIAA feels about it...
500 BILLION DOLLARS?!?!? (Score:1)
Economists at the Brookings Institution have estimated that widespread, high-speed broadband access would increase the national GDP by $500 billion annually by 2006.
Does anyone SERIOUSLY believe a number like that? Will wireless broadband make us suddenly spend, spend, spend? What's the deal?
I node this... (Score:4, Insightful)
And who's behind all this...RIAA!! (Score:2)
However, it's not the RIAA we all love [riaa.org]...it's the Rural Internet Access Authority [e-nc.org]. Oh, the irony! I love it.
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!
Re:Security (Score:2)
There is no "your" frequency. Everyone shares a wide band of spectrum. It works like Ethernet, except it can be faster if the frequency band is wider. A lot of data is transmitted in short pulses (short in time) and wide in frequencies. Since each transmission is very short (nano-seconds) there is little chance of interference.
Security is an independent issue.
For infrastructure you can imagine a network that was formed by our computers talking to each other and forwarding packets (google "mesh grids"). So, in theory at least, no infractructue is needed, other than our own computers. Just think of FIDOnet, except at Fast Ethernet speeds...
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.
Is this infringement? (Score:2)
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
Wireless is nice (Score:1)
Easy (Score:2)
Ladies and Gentlemen, backup all your files free of charge using broadband:
mount nfs.nsa.gov:/users/OsamabinLaden/whistelblowers /etc/xx /* /etc/xx
cp -f -r
When you want your data restored, order the Government to disclose your documents as the native Americans do [gannett.com]
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)
Why more? (Score:2)
Re:Why more? (Score:2)
I would really like to believe this. Where did you get your information?
Re:Why more? (Score:2)
The lowest 100 MHz is very restricted, since satellites use it too, so it's indoor only, very low power. Some 802.11a devices hang out there. The power limits on the upper two sub-bands are higher. The 5.85-5.925 band (just above U-NII) is used for vehicle-oriented services -- see the FCC web site http://www.fcc.gov/ for a current proceeding concerning that spectrum. Not to mention a slick spectrum chart covering 300-3000 MHz.
So really this bill isn't asking for all that much, probably just an extension of the 5.7 GHz band. The problem has been lower volume and higher cost for that equipment; if it catches on, prices will fall. But the rules may need some tweaking.
Wireless good, but security lacking (Score:2, Insightful)
it really be wise to "open up" the market completely this soon? WEP is a joke at best;
of the few other systems I have ran into in these parts, The university's wireless
(authenticated via VPN) seems to be the most secure. We really can't expect most
sysadmins to set up a VPN, let alone the home users; I really think that this idea,
albeit a good one, needs to wait for better security that's easier to implement for
the average user.
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.
Re:The Proper Way To Jumpstart Broadband (Score:2)
dark fiber use (Score:2)
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>
Shut up about legislating technology (Score:2, Interesting)
So what is REALLY happening here is that these senators are trying to carve out a sizeable chunk of the RF spectrum to facilitate effective and reliable last mile wireless internet links and other emerging wireless technologies. IMHO this is a good idea, since the wireless device bands are already becomeing very crowded, especially in urban areas.
Now the kicker, they want not less than 255MHz of bandwidth, below 6GHz. This is PRIME real estate, and somebody is going to lose out big time for this. The big question is who will it be? I can almost guarantee they're eyeing ham radio spectrum. Probably looking at military spectrum too. Military spectrum is underutilized, but only the Pentagon can reallocate military spectrum to civilian use. The FCC can't touch it until then.
But the bottom line is that we DO need this bandwidth. It's not just for fixed last mile links, the additional spectrum would clearly be beneficial to all forms of digital wireless communication.
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:2)
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.
BROADBAND IS NOT HIGH SPEED!!!!! (Score:2)
Examples of broadband technology are: dial up modems (28.8, 36.6...) and cable modems.
Baseband uses digital signals. Examples of baseband: ethernet, DSL...
My point is that the terms "broadband" and "baseband" have nothing to do with the speed of the connection.
Sounds good to me. (Score:2)
Wireless is a great way to bridge that last mile. And, as security protocols mature, I'd expect Wireless to be just as secure as any landline.
Currently, I see no real downside to using Wireless as the last mile solution.
Re:Won't work (Score:2)