FCC: Only We Can Regulate Unlicensed Spectrum 259
rfc1394 writes "In an article in ComputerWeekly, it was announced that the FCC has ruled that it has final jurisdiction over unlicensed wireless space, meaning that an airport authority can't force airlines to (pay to) use its wireless network and they may set up and use their own. This bodes well for the development of wireless networks in various areas as it means that you have the right to set up your own network even if your landlord would want you to use theirs."
It's the FCC's bandwidth, not anybody else's (Score:5, Interesting)
Abolish the FCC? (Score:4, Interesting)
Colleges (Score:5, Interesting)
Can Management at an Expo say no to Wi-Fi (Score:5, Interesting)
Can the management of the expo say that you cannot hook up a Wi-Fi router to the network that they have a monopoly over in the convention center?
Re:I do appreciate your optimism... (Score:2, Interesting)
Manhattan OTOH is hell for both renters _and_ landlords.. Boo WWII emergency rent control!
(Less'n you can pay $4k/mo for 2br... Or move to the outer boroughs like any rational techie would since broadband became available..)
Re:A Most Excellent decision (Score:5, Interesting)
When the FCC gives bandwidth space to the people, it belongs to the people.
A bigger issue than it seems... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Colleges (Score:3, Interesting)
Wireless Network Usage Policy [gatech.edu]
This has been officially in place for almost a year now I think.
Re:all your frequencies... (Score:5, Interesting)
Freqency division multiplexing (ie. dividing the spectrum into frequency bands) is the old way of doing things. In the 21st century, radio transmission will be done using spatial, frequency and temporal coding (and maybe others).
Using only frequency division multiplexing is like living in a one dimensional world, not realising that the world has at least three dimensions which you can move around in. Correspondingly, in a multidimensional world, it is possible to avoid collisions that would otherwise occur in a one dimensional world. In other words, combining spatial, temporal and frequency coding allows many more users to use the electromagnetic spectrum.
A consequence of such a move is that it is no longer possible to just talk about radio frequencies. It become a more generalised mish-mash involving frequency, time of transmission and location of transmission. Any of these can be used to differentiate a user. A 'code' is a generalised multidimensional version of a frequency.
Welcome flatlanders, to the multidimensional world.
Re:What doesn't the FCC have jurisdiction over? (Score:1, Interesting)
The FCC Rules and Regulations, which are the implementation of the authority granted through Title 47, United States Code, are delineated in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (47 CFR). The 'unlicensed' stuff is spelled out in Part 15 of the FCC Rules and Regulations (47 CFR 15).
The important points are:
1.) The FCC determines how the non-government frequency spectrum is to be divvied up.
2.) Just because something is not licensed per se does not mean it's not under FCC authority. The various broadcast stations (AM, FM, and TV), two-way land mobile (taxis, trucking companies, state/county/municipal emergency services, etc.), as well as amateur radio, are all _licensed_ services - stations are assigned callsigns, are given individual authorizations to operate, etc.
Certain other activities, such as Wi-Fi and CB radio, are not _licensed_ as such, but are _permitted_ under FCC R&R. If you insist on breaking the rules, be prepared to shell out upwards of $11,000 per day per violation - dozens of pirate FM broadcasters have already found that out the hard way.
3.) Congress reiterated this delineation of authority in Conference Report 97-765, where it declared:
The Conference Substitute is further intended to clarify the resolution to the Federal Communications Commission over matters involving RFI. Such matters shall not be regulated by local or state law, nor shall radio transmitting be subject to local or state regulation, as part of any effort to resolve an RFI complaint.
(HR Report No. 765, 97th Cong., 2 Sess 33 (1982), reprinted at 1982 US Code Cong & Ad News 2277).
IANAL, but have been an FCC licensee for over 35 years. The various appendices in the ARRL FCC Rule Book go into much further detail.
Re:It's just a codename for red tape... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:A Most Excellent decision (Score:5, Interesting)
Cell phone use on airplanes? (Score:5, Interesting)
What implications does this have for the ubiquitous banning of cell phone use on airplanes (in favor of the much more expensive payphones they have available for passengers who really need to make a call)?
Personally, I've always considered the cell phone ban during flights as nothing short of offensive. Yeah, suuuuure it interferes with their navigation. Hey, guess what, if cell phones interfered with airplane navigation, the very fact that your phone can get a signal (from huge many-megawatt transmitting cell towers) would cause far more problems than the RF output of your sad little portable transmitter (aka "phone").
Any thoughts, from someone who might really know the answer to this? Cell phones now kosher, or no? How about WAPs (ie, networked games between two people with 802.11 on their laptops on the same flight)? How about VOIP, if you can get a signal?
Re:A Most Excellent decision (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's a question point: If I have an FCC-approved wireless networking device (say, a cellphone), and I take it to work, can my employer prohibit me from using it?
I'll bet you anything the answer is "yes" if my employer's the NSA. :)
Re:Colleges (Score:4, Interesting)
At which point people will set up Linux boxes with wifi cards in them, and run them as APs. I'd like to them try to regulate the physical difference between that and a box with a wifi card that's getting on their network. If they're banning all wireless and just selectively enforcing it if you're not on their network, ask them why they're operating a wireless network if no one is allowed to be on it.
And, of course, nothing says the wireless routers have to be on their property, especially when you're talking about Georgia Tech, a college that does not have 'campus' per se, it's intermingled with the city. If they try to ban wireless access points, people will just set them up inside coffeehouses across the street from the dorm.
A very important question to ask them, in front of witnesses, is if they're trying to ban the equipment, student run networks, or just wireless broadcasting. And after they answer 'C', be sure to explain what 'unregulated' means. Watch them backpeddle.
Not so Fast (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's just a codename for red tape... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A Most Excellent decision (Score:2, Interesting)
The building that I own, live in, and run my business in was originally built in 1946. It's built like a blockhouse -- 16" concrete walls, small windows with steel bars behind them, and so on. Cellphones don't work worth a damn in here. That doesn't hurt my feelings at all because my business is a movie theatre.
On the negative side, AM and FM radio signals aren't worth listening to here either, so to get around this I have a car radio with an outdoor antenna set up in my kitchen so I can listen to the news.
Re:FCC versus private sector (Score:3, Interesting)
A homeowner's association is a private body, not a governmnent agency. As such, it can require through the contract and restrictive covenants certain requirements a government agency could not, such as prohibiting you from, say, painting your house a certain color or having a stained-glass window of Jesus or painting a cross or Star of David on your house.
Re:Not so Fast (Score:3, Interesting)
So far this has actually been a Good Thing, as FCC pre-emption generally works to block local restrictions on radio communications that are almost always unnecessary, heavy-handed, misguided or in outright bad faith. Just ask any ham radio operator. This ruling shows that the FCC is still doing its job.
About 20 years ago, I remember an attempt by my local town council in New Jersey to effectively ban all private satellite TV dishes. The claimed reason was RF safety -- from receive-only antennas! But outside the hearing room, the town attorney told me a different story; they didn't want satellite TV taking business away from the local cable TV operation because said cable operation was a significant source of cash to the town in the form of franchise fees. Not long afterwards, the FCC squashed this sort of nonsense in no uncertain terms.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Otherwise I suppose he'd even be able to say that your PC emits spurious radio emissions and your not allowed to use it in the apt. that your renting from him . . . even though the FCC says that the computer is adequately shielded and what little emissions come from your PC are irrelevant.