Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking Hardware

World Radiocommunications Group OKs New WLAN Spectrum 69

Posted by CowboyNeal from the look-ma-no-wires dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

World Radiocommunications Group OKs New WLAN Spectrum More

World Radiocommunications Group OKs New WLAN Spectrum

Comments Filter:

  • Foil Cap (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 03, 2003 @06:39PM (#6363492)
    How does the standard aluminum foil cap hold up to this spectrum? Will the government be able to beam thoughts into my head?

    Please reply by brainwave transmission, as I don't read this forum much.

  • Who owns the air? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ObviousGuy ( 578567 ) <ObviousGuy@hotmail.com> on Thursday July 03, 2003 @06:41PM (#6363502) Homepage Journal
    More regulations, less freedom.

    Too bad God didn't GPL the airwaves instead of turning it over wholesale to the governments of the world.

    • What? (Score:5, Informative)

      by poptones ( 653660 ) on Thursday July 03, 2003 @06:50PM (#6363546) Journal
      So allocating an unlicensed band that wasn't allocated before means LESS? It's not as if this band was never regulated before and the nations of the world just decided to take it over.

      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)

      by Kenja ( 541830 )
      So in your opinion all freq' should be unregulated? So in otherwords, you'd be fine with every device conflicting with every other device becuase they all try to use the same bandwidth?

      • Re:Who owns the air? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by poptones ( 653660 ) on Thursday July 03, 2003 @09:20PM (#6364256) Journal
        With power control and intelligent on-the-fly usage there is no need to allocate "bands." And by using a wider bandwidth you can increase the processing gain in the radio, which means you can have dozens (according to one paper, thousands) of radios all using the same spectrum - all securely (because encryption is inherent to the processing algorithm) and all at the same time.

        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.

        • Yeah, and who is going to regulate that everyone uses power control and that it works right all the time?

          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.
          • Yeah, and who is going to regulate that everyone uses power control and that it works right all the time?

            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)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Won't this probably only be line of sight only?
    • Well, that depends on the antenna that is used. There is nothing inherent in the frequency or modulation that limits the signal propagation. If a direction antenna is used, then yes the signal will propogate much further in the orientated direction. With a linear antenna, like the small ones on most cheap 802.11 transmitters (or your 2.4ghz phone for that matter)the signal pattern of the antennae is more evenly distributed in each direction.
    • Yeah, why should we switch to this?
      I mean, 2.4GHz bounces really well off the ionosphere...

  • 802.11a? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by localghost ( 659616 ) <dleblanc@gmail.com> on Thursday July 03, 2003 @06:43PM (#6363511)
    802.11a uses this already, does it not? Was it not allowed internationally already or something?

  • And Our Health? (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by joaommp ( 685612 )
    I just want to see how it would be in a few years, when we all start to suffer from the radiation effects. Even at 2.4 Gig, 0.2W you can already feel some headache if you are sensitive. A CISCO 1100 at my university campus was at it's highest power and everybody in a 10m radius was feeling headache. But 5GHz? Is everyone trying to cook us making this place a big microwave oven? Way too dangerous. I sincerely hope they apply the radio tariffs here to it, as they applied to CB and everything else. I can see s

    • Re:And Our Health? (Score:5, Informative)

      by hamsterboy ( 218246 ) on Thursday July 03, 2003 @06:58PM (#6363601)
      Actually, 5GHz won't affect humans nearly as much as 2.4GHz; a microwave oven operates at around 2.4GHz, where the 5GHz band does nothing useful/harmful on a macro scale.

      • Re:And Our Health? (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        No big difference in heating between 2.4GHz and 5Ghz. 2.4GHZ is _not_ a "magical" frequency for heating water. See: http://homepages.ed.ac.uk/ah05/microwave.html

        • Re:And Our Health? (Score:5, Informative)

          by josh crawley ( 537561 ) on Thursday July 03, 2003 @07:21PM (#6363721)
          From the page in question:

          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.

        • Actually, 2.4 GHz is the frequency absorbed by water. That's why it's used in microwave ovens. It's also why it requires no licence - It is unuseable for commercial, government applications. As for 5GHz, it's absorbed by oxygen, another useless frequency. That's why 802.11a gets less range than 802.11b/g - there's always oxygen in the air, but moisture isn't always as abundant as oxygen
          • The previous poster gave you link, and _still_ignored it.

            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)

      by dreadnougat ( 682974 ) on Thursday July 03, 2003 @08:25PM (#6364008)
      I'm curious as to how far you're sitting from your monitor.

  • Contain Indoors? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by WC as Kato ( 675505 ) on Thursday July 03, 2003 @06:45PM (#6363523)

    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!

    • I'm not sure if you were making a joke, but I assume they mean things like sticking antennas outdoor with the intent of broadcasting to other outdoor antennas. Leakage is fine.
    • What they COULD do is force the manufacturers to produce the equipment with lower radiated power, probably by declining licenses and certificates to products that do not follow these guidelines. And yes, even if the country is a signatory party to this recommendation, they still can impose restrictions on their teritory (the bands were allocated for WiFi use, not deregulated).

      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)

    by bethane ( 686358 ) on Thursday July 03, 2003 @06:47PM (#6363534) Homepage Journal
    The 5gig band is much better for wireless communication than the cluttered 2.4Ghz band. Some of the main advantages of 5GHz:

    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)

      by Raindance ( 680694 ) * <johnsonmx@@@gmail...com> on Thursday July 03, 2003 @07:11PM (#6363666) Homepage Journal
      Could you, or someone familiar with the characteristics of high frequency waves, detail any downsides of using the 5Ghz band?

      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)

        by gad_zuki! ( 70830 ) * on Thursday July 03, 2003 @09:29PM (#6364294)
        >detail any downsides of using the 5Ghz band?

        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)

      by CausticWindow ( 632215 ) on Thursday July 03, 2003 @07:18PM (#6363703)

      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)

        by YankeeInExile ( 577704 ) on Thursday July 03, 2003 @07:45PM (#6363831) Homepage Journal
        There is a broad gap between "orgaic tissue will be affected" and "provable causality of detrimental side effects."

        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.

        • Put out that cigarette.
        • Wear a condom.
        • Put down the Burrito Supreme.
        • Walk to the liquor store instead of drive.
        Computer software consists of only two components -- ones and zeros -- in roughly equal proportions. All that is required is to sort them into the correct order.

        • Risks... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by ecalkin ( 468811 ) on Thursday July 03, 2003 @08:14PM (#6363954)
          ...and i don't mind if you take the risk that is involved with 5Ghz radio. but there may be people *around* you that don't share the same risk affinity.

          eric
          • This is the smartest thing I've read on Slashdot all day. And I've been bored, so I've read a lot. I agree. While I may be willing to take the risk of driving 100 MPH on the Interstate, it is not only me that I am affecting--there are the other potential crash victims to consider. So it's illegal.

            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

          • Noone has proved it's safe and noone has proved it's harmful. Proving that something is safe is like proving a negative -- it is damn right impossible.

            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.

        • Well, with cancer, or road accidents, it's easy. It's a binary risk. You either get it or you don't, and a lot of people are willing to take some extra risk there.

          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)

    by Moderation abuser ( 184013 ) on Thursday July 03, 2003 @06:50PM (#6363550)
    The 100mW EIRP regulations across most of Europe severely limit the usefulness of the current 2.4GHz systems.

    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)

    by Penguinshit ( 591885 ) on Thursday July 03, 2003 @07:00PM (#6363609) Homepage Journal
    Hmm.. this might explain the sudden massive shift in Dentistry toward exclusive use of ceramics in tooth fillings.

  • WLANs (Score:5, Informative)

    by Eric(b0mb)Dennis ( 629047 ) * on Thursday July 03, 2003 @07:09PM (#6363648)
    If wireless networking ever does take off, this will be a huge boon... standardization is really the only way to ensure a future with interoperable global WLANs.. If only they did this with cellphones in the beginning.. instead of who knows how many different standards are around I wonder if any company has considered a SIrius/XM Radio like wireless internet connection? Would this be possible using satellites? What kind of speeds could be expected? Just some curious ideas I was pondering

  • airwave economics (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bill, Shooter of Bul ( 629286 ) on Thursday July 03, 2003 @07:19PM (#6363706) Journal
    Its a shame that governments control the airwaves, but unfortunately in order for them to be of any use they sorta haveto.They regulate the airwaves as to reduce interferance that would otherwise jam just about every band. This way large corperate radio stations won't interfere with someone's remotely powered pacemaker. And SGI can't fry my pc's wifi card if I put my labtop next to their latest supercomputer. Its sort of a tragedy of the commons situation. The solution is to get rid of the commons by assigning ownership to them.
  • Typing this as I wait for my flight that's delayed a couple hours. So if it means easier (and cheaper) access to the internet wherever I want it, I say more power to 'em!
  • guess i'll have to re-design my home-brew antennas. And proberly buy new gear, but at least I won't get as much interference from my shed door opener, my cordless phone, microwave, fridge, wireless stereo ear phones, and my neighbours..........
  • I was just thinking would someone comes out and reuglate visual light?
    Or someone would patent a LED Torch emitting wave at 6.98E14 Hz?

  • hiperlan2 (Score:2, Informative)

    by CaptainFrito ( 599630 )
    the PAL of 802.11a

  • Wrong direction... (Score:4, Informative)

    by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Thursday July 03, 2003 @09:18PM (#6364245) Journal
    If you ask me (which nobody has), we should be using lower frequencies, not higher frequencies. Sure, lower frequencies require more bandwidth for the same speeds, but with lower bandwidths, obstacles wouldn't be a big deal, and you could transmit far, far further with less power as well.

    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.
    • >If you ask me (which nobody has), we should be using lower frequencies, not higher frequencies. Sure, lower frequencies require more bandwidth for the same speeds, but with lower bandwidths, obstacles wouldn't be a big deal, and you could transmit far, far further with less power as well.

      Small wonder that nobody asks you....
  • I just replaced (today) my Panasonic 2.4ghz phone that wa walking all over my wireless network at home with a ATT 5.8ghz phone....now I am hoping I dont have to go back to corded or a 900mhz phone. I know its in the lower range (like 5.2ghz) (the new standard)
  • OK. Cool. More unregulated spectrum. Is this the first step towards something along the lines of what David Reed has been going on about?

    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

  • FCC still have to approve it for US use.

Slashdot Top Deals

Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky

Close