Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking The Almighty Buck Hardware

Regulatory Fees on the 802.11 Broadcast Spectrum? 295

Posted by Cliff from the YMMV-depending-on-locale dept.
Demerara asks: "I live in the Caribbean where I am putting together a business plan for a WISP on St. Lucia. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that the St. Lucian National Telecomms Regulatory Commission here licenses and charges fees for 2.4Ghz spread spectrum applications. It's nearly US$400 to apply and, get this, nearly US$800 per link, per *year*. This blows the economics of a WISP out of the water. I may be reading the laws and regulations wrong but I don't think so. For example - they even charge an application fee and an annual license for the 'Family Band' walkie-talkies - look in the fees PDF. I am attempting to find out the following: what international agreements govern spectrum management; what international agreements govern licensing of WiFi or 802.11; and finally, are there any Slashdot readers out there who live in countries where 802.11 technology is also licensed or heavily regulated? The ITU website doesn't seem to answer these questions or, to be fair, I cannot come up with the keywords to find the answers. I'd love to hear from others who use or operate 802.11 under less than 'free' regulatory regimes."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Regulatory Fees on the 802.11 Broadcast Spectrum? More

Regulatory Fees on the 802.11 Broadcast Spectrum?

Comments Filter:

  • Some Countries are unclear on the concept. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BigFire ( 13822 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @05:48PM (#6344308)
    When ever they see even a way of squeezing a buck out of whatever you do, they'll go for it. This has the effect of driving business from even visiting the place in the first place.

    Well, one of the benefit of sovereignity is the ability to print your own money, hope someone else is dumb enough to actually take it.

  • What you have to realize, (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mindstrm ( 20013 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @05:49PM (#6344321)
    especially in small countries, is that the government can and do control everything. They can regulate spectrum how they want, and USE how they want.

    Some places even say "You can't use 2.4Ghz for internet" or "providing internet in any way is forbidden unless you are the national ISP" .. etc....

    So you might be screwed.

    The upside, is you can bribe.

    • Dude, good point! (Score:4, Funny)

      by Elwood P Dowd ( 16933 ) <judgmentalist@gmail.com> on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @06:01PM (#6344452) Journal
      Cuervo Nation [cuervonation.com] should totally regulate frequencies commonly used by satelites, and then sue those satellite radio dudes. I mean sure, they'd be in the clear so long as they never went to Cuervo Nation, but then I ask you, dudes, how would they have a good time? Would they be barred from Cuervo Nation for the rest of their lives? They'd have to submit to Cuervo's every demand.

    • Re:What you have to realize, (Score:5, Interesting)

      by autopr0n ( 534291 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @06:16PM (#6344572) Homepage Journal
      especially in small countries, is that the government can and do control everything. They can regulate spectrum how they want, and USE how they want.

      Heh, it's not like that isn't the case here. After all, all of this came about because someone at the FCC though "Hey, lets take this 2.4 ghz band and let people use it for stuff like garage door openers and cordless phones! (and whatever else they can think up)" It would be just as illegal here to try to setup wifi on the 2.2 ghz band or the 2.5 as it is for him to to use 2.4 over there without paying.

      as far as I know, there are no treates dealing with signal use. In fact, one of the things Clear Channel does is broadcast from mexico so that they can circumvent limits on how many radio stations they own.

      Anyway, asside from a few windows, all radio spectrum is regulated in the US. Wifi was created to work in those windows, not the other way around. It would be sensible for other countries to have the same windows, but not you can't act like america is better if they don't.
      • Lets not forget that in other countries, the power limitation imposed in the US doesn't exist. And it's possible to use much more powerful wifi equipment that covers far greater areas. Sure, you can use a directed antenna here, but directed antenna + power boost is a lot more effective.

      • Cross-Border Radio (Score:3, Informative)

        by Detritus ( 11846 )
        The United States has treaties with Mexico and Canada that lay out a framework for coordination of radio and television licensing. You can't just hop across the border and build a 1 MW radio station on any frequency you like.

      • There ARE treaties... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by n1ywb ( 555767 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @07:42PM (#6345149) Homepage Journal
        There ARE international treaties on spectrum utilization. Except that they tend to take a extremely broad view, and only recognize a few specific services, such as shortwave broadcasting, amateur radio, radar, radio astronomy, etc. The vast majority of frequency allocations are designated for certain general types of use and the implementation is left entirely up to the national governments.

        In Great Britain you have to buy a license to legally RECIEVE television channels (may no longer be true).

        There are no "windows" of unregulated frequencies in the US. The FCC regulates everything from 30KHz to 300GHz. Some bands are free-er than others, but they are all regulated and all devices which emit radio frequency energy must meet FCC regulations.

        It's pretty common for broadcasters to transmit from neighboring countries. The US does it on a global scale, poinding The Voice Of America into evil commie pinko countries all over the world. Just as their are companies transmitting from Mexico into the US, there are also a lot of companies transmitting from the US into Canada. International law DOES specify that signals are only subject to the regulations of the country they originate in. For example, France can't extradite you for transmitting a pro-Nazi tyrade from a US based shortwave station. Fuck Nazi's by the way, it's just the only example I could think of.

        International treaties take much less notice of the higher bands, since the only way signals at those frequencies will cross many borders is via satellites. This is a problem for countries like the Canada, that basicly ends up having to copy most of the US's band-plans.

        Thankfully, with few exceptions, my ham radio frequencies are protected on a global basis. Now if we could just get those god damn short wave stations off 40 meters...
        • Actually I'm wrong on one count. In the US there are large chunks of the RF spectrum designated for military use, and the FCC has absolutely no authority over how those bands are used. I'm not sure who the responsible party there is. The FCC does get to have some say in exactly what bands are designated as military.
      • Didn't they just deregulate how many stations one company can own?

  • Sydney Wireless (Score:2, Interesting)

    by aligma ( 682744 )
    Yes in Australia theres a connection of broadcasters called Sydney Wireless who all have their own hardware and are communicating and leeching for free on their own little intranet. I heard that some authorities have taken notice and are getting ready to kill the operation... :(
    • At the rish of /.'ing our national communications authority (ACA) in Australia, there is a very clear fact sheet on this [aca.gov.au] (PDF) from them...

      Long and the short is that for personal use - no license is required. For "commercial" (looks like it even includes sharing one ADSL landline over WiFi between neighbours) use, a license is required.

      Practically, though, they don't seem to mind as long as you're under a certain power level.
    • I heard that some authorities have taken notice and are getting ready to kill the operation... :(

      I would like to know where you heard this, because as mcdrewski42 has pointed out the network is perfectly legal.

      • Re:Sydney Wireless (Score:3, Interesting)

        by aligma ( 682744 )
        Well, "just from a friend", but he was referring to the fact that as Sydney Wireless grows, and as some machines are connected to the internet, it may be constituted as a part of the internet. "Due to legal issues, the sharing of the Internet on the 2.4GHz Spectrum is illegal in Australia but common use of the wireless local area network (WLAN) include games, FTPs, web servers, VOIP phone calls, video conferencing and the like. There are other exemptions, such as close relationship rules, for companies sup

  • what about 802.11a (Score:2, Informative)

    by bran880 ( 84112 )
    Doesn't 802.11a operate at a different frequency (5.5ghz)?

    • Re:what about 802.11a (Score:2, Informative)

      by Mshift2x ( 686015 )
      Around there somewhat, but 802.11a has to be line of sight, not very viable for a wisp

    • Re:what about 802.11a (Score:2, Informative)

      by thogard ( 43403 )
      There are two frequencies for use in the US around 5, one is 5.2 the other isthe top end of 5.7. It turns out that 5.2 is used for uplinks for many sats and is protected by many countries because one of their neighbors assigned it for a sat uplink. The problem is those old agreements of not stepping on other countries frequencies are very hard to change because the orignial country isn't going to give up their old frequency and may not be reporting that its not longer in use. Of course it would be very st

  • Quiet you dimwit... (Score:4, Funny)

    by irving47 ( 73147 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @05:50PM (#6344330) Homepage
    You're going to give the United States Congress too many ideas. Or worse, California...
    And thanks heaps to Cliff for posting this where politicians might see it! :)

  • "I live in the Caribbean..."

    I thought you were all very chilled out over there, like whats $800 between mates eh? ;)

  • Other options (Score:5, Interesting)

    by theglassishalf ( 216497 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @05:53PM (#6344364) Homepage
    Well...you are about 25 miles south of Martinique. What are their laws? You could just boost the power and point your antennas due south a la Wolfman Jack... (during the 60s, he broadcast his radio show at "4 times the legal limit" from 4 towers just south of the Mexican border, pointed due north.)

    -Daniel
    • Your users would all be in violation of the law.
    • Yes, but Wolfman Jack's operation needed a license from the Mexican government... and there just happens to be agreements between Mexico, the USA and Canada to all use the same standards for over the air broadcast TV and Radio, and to cooperate in border areas so that Buffalo's TV allocations aren't on the same frequencies as Toronto's. The FCC could have putted Wolfman Jack out of business, if they wanted to, by simply licensing stations accross the West Coast with the same frequency.

      BTW, such a stunt can
    • Intriguing. A ship offshore, or rather a network of them, might be better.

      The terrain in St. Lucia is volcanic and mountainous. You'd illuminate the Martinique-side coast that way but would be blocked from a lot of the island. To get even that much over a 25-mile path, you'd need a 250-foot tower to clear the horizon and reach a typical near-the-ground station. Expensive in a hurricane zone. Wonder if you could pick up the signals from a customer's WiFi card at that range, given a good parabolic antenna? M
  • The submitter mentions that they charge for FRS radios. Who are they charging? If someone purchases two radios for $40 do they then have to pay $1200 to actually use them? What about 2.4ghz phones and video transmitters? Does this only apply to businesses?

    • GMRS is very similar to FRS, but with more channels and higher power limits. It seems many people aren't aware that in the U.S. users of GMRS [fcc.gov] radios are supposed to be licensed at ~$80/5 years. Most users of cheap GMRS radios [outpost.com] don't know/care that they are supposed to be periodicaly broadcasting their callsign, and these can't be used just like high-power FRS radios.

      WPXQ778

      • Those GMRS radios look slick - transmit on any of 22 channels at 5 WATTS. Holy crap, on one hand I am thinking - woah cool, think of the range you could score on those babys, but then I consider an antenna right next to my skull transmitting 5 WATTS of power.

        Hmm.

        15 bucks apiece for 5 watt walkie talkies ... I wonder how fast they eat batteries. Still tempting.

  • I wish they would do that in the US (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 73939133 ( 676561 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @05:54PM (#6344372)
    If the spectrum used by 802.11b gets flooded by ISPs, cell phone companies, and other commercial users, it will become useless for its primary purpose: networking and communications within an organization or home.

    If you make money by selling services using some chunk of spectrum, I think you should have to pay for that chunk of spectrum, or at the very least convince the government to give it to you for free.
    • Can you name any cases where someone couldn't network their home because of interference from the local ISP?

      DSSS is designed to support lots of nodes. Even nodes on the same frequency. That's one of the reasons it's become so popular.

    • If the spectrum used by 802.11b gets flooded by ISPs, cell phone companies, and other commercial users, it will become useless for its primary purpose: networking and communications within an organization or home.

      Geez. Its already too crowded: thats why the FCC doesn't regulate it. It isn't called "ISM" for nothing. Lots of things give off radiation in this range (including your microwave), so they decided to open it up.

    • We've already got a safety net for that. No single device on the 2.4 GHz band can have more than 1/10th of a Watt of ERP... Effective Radiated Power, which means that any refection-based gain from an antenna counts too... A standard consumer device plus a Pringles can if done right can accidently send you over the limit. (Think of it going 80 MPH on the highway... usually you don't get caught, but if you're the unlucky one they do catch, it's one big fine to pay.)

      So no, an ISP can't exactly blanket a large

  • National Soverignty (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    There are few "international agreements" regarding the use of the EM spectrum, outside of not interfereing with each other. Each nation is free to regulate who can transmit and how they do it.

    For example, certain 802.11b/g channels that can be used in the US cannot be used in Europe, and vice versa.

    However, you may also want to look into the 900mhz band that 802.11b/g uses. In the US its unregulated, and may be for St. Lucia as well.

    • Re:National Soverignty (Score:4, Informative)

      by Beryllium Sphere(tm) ( 193358 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @07:29PM (#6345070) Journal
      And in most cases, "not interfering" means that the only frequencies regulated are the long-range communication frequencies that are likely to cross borders.

      Shorter-range communication may also be covered by international agreement if it's near a border. For example, there are amateur radio UHF frequencies which are legal to use if you're south of Aberdeen, Washington but illegal north of it, to prevent interference with Canadian commercial mobile radio.

      The result is that if there is an international agreement, it's probably restrictive.

      You could always disguise your equipment as microwave ovens and say they're just a bit leaky :-)

  • What's next? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Mshift2x ( 686015 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @05:55PM (#6344376)
    I wonder when we'll have to pay licensing fees for our microwaves, since you know, they do emit microwaves at some frequency
    • This frequency was fixed long ago by the FCC specifically for this use. Not much else transmits at 2450MHz for obvious reasons...
      • This frequency was fixed long ago by the FCC specifically for this use. Not much else transmits at 2450MHz for obvious reasons...

        ...except:

        Many cordless phones

        Many consumer wireless devices

        Many 802.11x wireless network cards

        I don't think microwaves (or the spectrum) should be regulated, but it is annoying that the network goes down when my wife puts in some popcorn. I know, you should always use actual wires for mission critical stuff (like playing MP3s at a party).

    • Just look on the back of the microwave for the FCC sticker and device rating, indicating that it passes the requirements for a device of its class. This means that signal emissions fall within acceptable limits to not interfere with other equipment.

  • Could be worse, could be Trinidad (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @05:57PM (#6344400)
    Consider yourself lucky that the government still owns and collects on 802.11 frequencies. In Trinidad, they sold those rights away to a private company which is even more vehement in putting obsticales in the way of using wifi. Public commons should not be privately owned, and this is more true in spectrum than anywhere else.

  • Well, many countries have similar taxes... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    England, for instance, has a Television Fee [turnoffyourtv.com], which I hear is enforced with vans that drive around and somehow detect if you are running an unlicenced set. In the US, we charge various fees [fcc.gov] [PDF] for amateur short-range broadcast licenses. So there's kind of a precedent. I don't see why 802.11, in which you are actually broadcasting, should be any different.

    So I'm sure the US isn't far behind. Your 900mhz wireless phone and certain halogen lamps that often interfere with wireless devices should have th
    • The british Television Fee is not a fee for airwave use, but rather a fee for content service. The BBC channels in the UK are government run, and the budget to run the stations comes from from this fee.
    • Philip K. Dick's UBIK has things in it like this. Everything takes change. Even to get the front door open, because the protagonist is too poor to afford a 'prepaid' normal house. He almost got locked into his house because the door wouldn't open, and it sat there and argued with him about opening.
    • ...which I hear is enforced with vans that drive around and somehow detect if you are running an unlicenced set.

      Those vans are greatly overrated. When my mother lived in London, she was harrassed by those guys and she didn't even have a TV.

      Luckily she had a security chain, apparently, they were ready to push their way inside, but they were not willing to go all the way and break the door down.

  • Russia (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @05:57PM (#6344406)
    In Russia we have the same situation.

    Our ministry of communications requires company that use 802.11b for commercial to pay 2000$ per year for liciencing. There are special licenses on telecommunicational services and commercial communications.

    And in every case of 802.11b you can have problem with local state security or military...

  • Different way 2 make money & get Govt on your (Score:4, Insightful)

    by adzoox ( 615327 ) * on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @05:59PM (#6344420) Journal
    If that's true, then why don't you just get a signal sniffer and turn everyone in that has microwaves, 2.4Ghz, & 5Ghz spread spectrum cordless phones. Help your government collect fines.

    If you DO have to pay for such a liscense, turn in a few governing officials for using these "waves"

    I remember IBM made an interface not long ago that just attached to your modem port and used the same technology as a 900Mhz phone (pre 802.11b days). Who's to say what ANYONE at ANY given time is doing with their lines or those unrestricted airwaves?

    I also recall that France had a problem with Apple's Airport when it first came out, and the last Airport Extreme firmware update addressed a lot issues specifically for France. So, you may want to see what the French object to as a place to start.

  • Governments can license the way they want (Score:4, Informative)

    by n8ur ( 230546 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @05:59PM (#6344422) Homepage
    Although there are international treaties governing radio communications, those are mainly intended mainly to avoid interference. They don't govern how a government chooses to manage its licensing process. (Just as an example, contrast the US privately operated broadcast radio spectrum with the state operation of broadcasting in many countries.)

    Particularly at the VHF/UHF/microwave frequencies that normally do not travel across national boundaries, even the international regulations become more limited and countries often opt out of the ITU (International Telecommunications Union) agreements as to specific frequency allocations.

    The unlicensed "Part 15" operation in the US is a creature of the US radio regulations, and not any international requirement -- though many other countries recognize (or at least tolerate) 802.11b operation, they aren't *required* to.

  • I am attempting to find out the following: what international agreements govern spectrum management;...

    Ummm, instead of trying to use strong-arm tactics to get what you want, why not just play nice and try to get the rules changed from within? You do live there. Even better if you're a citizen there.
  • i live in south africa, i am currently with a WISP, the wireless lincesses are, afaik, hard to obtain. My ISP has a repeater set up in one part of town, and on the other side they put another one but had to take it down because they were told it was illigal to have it up. Also they have been other attempts to have wifi up in south africa which have failed, namely megawan.

  • You are SOL (Score:2, Insightful)

    by alienw ( 585907 )
    Sorry, but there are no international agreements regarding unlicensed spectrum. Unlicensed use of the 2.4GHz band is a privilege, not a right, and is permitted only in the US and a few other countries. The FRS walkie-talkies are a purely US thing, and are illegal to use in most other countries. Hell, many countries confiscate them (and other unapproved RF equipment) at the border.
    • Sorry, but there are no international agreements regarding unlicensed spectrum. Unlicensed use of the 2.4GHz band is a privilege, not a right, and is permitted only in the US and a few other countries.

      Use of air is a privilege? Damn, he really is screwed! Can we some some people together to send him some canned air?
      (Note to the clueless:I'm being facetious.)

      Now seriously, why is use of XXX band a privilege and not a right? The RF spectrum belongs to the public, therefore the public has a right to

  • Mongolia too (Score:3, Informative)

    by bot ( 235273 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @06:05PM (#6344474)
    Slate [slate.com] had a travel diary [msn.com] by a GeekCorps [geekcorps.org] guy in Mongolia- seems they have a similar policy. IMO, a lot of third world countries have fairly unimaginative beauracracies..
    He says (and I quote) "what's going wrong with Mongolia's Internet policy. Here's an example: In most parts of the world, the 2.4 ghz portion of the radio spectrum is set aside for unlicensed use by low-power, short-range devices--like Wi-Fi (aka 802.11b) wireless Internet cards and cordless telephones--without government permission. The result has been an astounding explosion in the deployment of wireless Internet connections, from home networks to the T-Mobile hotspot at each of the 17 Starbucks on your block. In Mongolia, however, the regulatory authority has ruled that companies and users must obtain official licenses (and pay costly licensing fees) to use the 2.4 ghz range for any purpose. Even to set up a wireless home network requires government permission and the payment of fees. This policy can best be described as bonkers."

  • Protection of Govenment Sponsored Monopolies (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bladernr ( 683269 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @06:05PM (#6344475)
    If you look deeper, you may discover that the govenment is protecting an [in-efficient] monopoly.

    For instance, many countries disallow consumer VoIP usage (India, for instance, last time I checked). The reason is that their big, government controlled international phone carrier (BSNL) makes most of its profit from international calls. Government enterprises are protected by the government through a system of regulations, leading generally to higher prices and lower service all around.

    Maybe the government is protecting a government ISP or wireless provider. Yes, it could be mobile phone protection; many government regulators don't notice a different between GSM, 3G and 802.11b/g.

    To get around the licensing, you may can convince/bribe some government minister that you won't be competing with the protected enterprise. Otherwise, maybe you can take your case to the public and hope for a rules change. No matter what, changing protectionist regulations is a nightmare. Just ask Europe how easy it would be to get France to consider dropping the CAP and going for free-market food-production.

  • Common problem (Score:4, Insightful)

    by smallpaul ( 65919 ) <paul AT prescod DOT net> on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @06:05PM (#6344479)
    Carribean countries (and probably a lot of development countries) tend to think about income in the short-term. They don't think about the industries they are strangling. It is also common (still!) for them to award complete monopolies on technologies in exchange for cash. Consider the sad state of the Barbadian telecoms "industry" [freedomtocare.org].
  • I would think that various countries in the Caribbean would want WiFi access as open and accessible as possible, just think of the tourism possibilities. What slashdotter wouldn't want to sit on the beach on a beautiful island while having WiFi access to keep up with the latest /.? I think the governments should make it easy for companies to install WiFi networks, and then market them for reasonable fees to tourists. That would really boost their economy!

  • I grew up in Jamaica and (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Brigadier ( 12956 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @06:09PM (#6344502)


    there are quite a few laws governing any sort of braodcast, but there is no one to police it. and If you did get cought a US $50 would paysomeone off. I know this sounds bad but it's true. Most third world contries dont have the ifrastructure to manage stuff like this. So why do they make such laws to gouge anyone who tries to do something that woudl better the community.
    • Most third world contries don't have the ifrastructure to manage stuff like this. So why do they make such laws to gouge anyone who tries to do something that would better the community[?]

      Because they can. And because sometimes the decisionmakers don't believe their own interests will be served by enabling others to make money or have a freer life.

      And THAT'S one of the BIG factors keeping many third-world countries dirt-poor.

      They love to claim it's the nasty US government, corporate exploiters, opposit
  • What your business doing represents a win-win scenario for the government of St. Lucia. Show the government how your business will make their jobs and lives easier and better. They may even become one of your better investors. I am sure you will be able to work a way around this regulatory snag, or have it deregulated.
  • Just get a job at McDonald's for a few years here in the states and then use your saving to simply *buy* the government of St. Lucia. Voila! Telecom deregulation.
  • It's a gross example, but no different in prinicple for ANY fees on specturm. It should be obvious from the 60 or so empty broadcast TV stations that the airwaves are underutilized. The sharing of spectrum demonstrated by wi-fi and cell phones conclusively demonstrate that specturm can be shared with little loss of quality. What your are left with is that licensing fees are not paid to avoid specturm conflicts, they are paid to limit the number of broadcasters and generate government revenue. $400/per y
    • Just because you see full screen static on your TV set doesn't mean that the TV channel isn't being used, just that it's not useful in your area.

      There are a few "vacant allocations" in existance, and if you look those up and send the FCC the right paperwork and pay the fee, you can own a TV station. The half million part comes in with the fact that TV broadcast towers are expensive things to build, and don't forget you'll actually be required to buy or produce programming to put on your TV station. But the

  • Bullshit question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by maggard ( 5579 ) <michael@michaelmaggard.com> on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @06:29PM (#6344660) Homepage Journal
    Most nations consider their telecommunications spectrum to a natural national resource the same as public lands, airspace, coasts, mining, etc. Indeed at one time the US licensed on the basis that "aether" was a physical medium.

    You're proposing a business built on using the publics property - their radio frequencies. Why shouldn't they expect to get back return on their property?

    In many countries operators are required to give back in return via community-interest programming, being requisitioned in times of emergency, providing other services. Different countries prefer a straight licensing fee: Pay to use the medium or get shut down. Most use some combination as does the USA.

    However your asking on /. for an interpretation of St. Lucia law is absolutely ludicrous. Pay for competent local legal advice and don't go asking the geeks for what most of them know little about: International telecommunications law and specifically St. Lucia law.

    Why does /. post these garbage questions every so often anyhow? Raise pageviews? It's gotta be obvious few if any of the readers here will have the requisite knowledge, hell half are probably unaware there is non-US law anywhere.

  • I'm pretty sure that the country can do whatever they want regarding "Air space" policy. A case in point is France where some of the WiFi spectrum is off limits due to it already being used by the military. Most countries have this gap in the ranges because it is not a very good transmition band due to it being the resonant frequency of water. So they usually just skip it and classify the next higher band for use. The only reason it is free is because no one wanted to buy it. Now people do so it is only log
  • the early years of telephone answering machines, and, I think, 300 baud modems as well. (Now donning craggy old man's voice:)

    Supposedly, you were supposed to notify the phone company that you were installing one of these devices. In fact, I think I even bought a Commodore 64 modem once that came labeled that I needed to notify the phone company. But I never did, and neither did anyone else.

    Yeah, the government may well impose a fee of $400 for your 802.11B hookup. But the real question is, is this la

  • I hate to say it (and I'll probably be called a bigot for it), but starting in Mexico and moving South the answer is: Bribe the right official. Those regulations you're talking about exist in the first place because a competitor already did.

    Put together a nice sales-speak contract with a made-up flat fee. Pay the fee to the government, and pay it again to the official who has to stamp it OK. Presto, you're in business.

  • Someone has to pay! (Score:5, Funny)

    by k12linux ( 627320 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @06:54PM (#6344843)
    Quit whining about paying for wireless spectrum. After all, someone has to produce that spectrum. You can't just expect the government or private industry to make spectrum all day long and then give it away.

    Spectrum is hard to make. I mean, look how long it took to perfect 2.4Ghz spectrum and produce enough to support WiFi. All those R&D costs have to be paid by someone! I'm not even counting the investment needed to build a spectrum manufacturing plant.

    The US government is able to give it away for free only because of payments from WiFi manufacturers. The WiFi group shrewdly knew that the market would open wide if there was free 2.4Ghz radio spectrum. ;-)
  • Many of these countries own their own telephone company, in whole or with a partner. In some Caribbean states (I don't know about St. Lucia offhand), Cable & Wireless, a privatized formerly-British state-owned company, has the monopoly, and has its tentacles deep into the regulators.

    So a WISP would be a competitor, and that's simply not allowed. All communications money must flow to the government or C&W (who pays off the right people). That used to be the system in the USA, and the RBOCs are tr
  • What this guy wants to do isn't possible in the USA either. 2.4 GHz isn't unregulated here either... it's unlicenced, meaning that you don't have to file any paperwork or pay any fee to use it, but there's still regulations about it. Particularly, you can't have an ERP greater than 1/10 of a Watt from any single device. Yep, too strong a signal, and you're in violation of FCC rules and although it's unlikely they'll bother to look for you, you could be fined if the FCC's in town. (Read, somebody complains a

  • Probably all wrong... (Score:3, Informative)

    by mikeage ( 119105 ) <slashdot AT mikeage DOT net> on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @07:20PM (#6345008) Homepage
    Sometimes, even if you don't know exactly what's going on, when someone messes up the one part you DO know, you just doubt them on everything.

    E.g.: Family Radio Service (FRS) is FREE! The application fee is for GMRS, radios which are more powerful, and broadcast on a slightly different set of frequencies. Presumably, the confusion comes about due to the fact that 7 of the 22 GMRS channels (more precisely, 7 of the 22 channels GMRS radios operate on) are FRS... but FRS is still free (I don't know about using GMRS radios on FRS-only freqs).
  • It's not about convenience, it's ALL about protectionism. If they price inexpensive/free solutions "out of the market" then you will continue to use the otherwise more expensive solution. In this case, I'm betting the government wants to protect its own ISP, or pehaps a "rich friend's" ISP/method/etc...

    Whoever said regulations and taxes have anything to do with convenience?

  • Trash WiFi - USE LASER! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Libor Vanek ( 248963 ) <libor,vanek&gmail,com> on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @07:55PM (#6345249) Homepage
    See http://ronja.advel.cz/ - very popular here in Czech rep - 100s pcs up and running 100% OK.
  • Of course you might just give up because of the licensing fee for being an ISP at all (code ISP2, $5000 up front and 3% of gross).

    The way to get things done in general is to find allies. Do any of the key industries (tourism, offshore banking) have a need which WiFi can fill? If so you could make a joint pitch to the government.

    Also, you might check if they have any equivalent to the Special Temporary Authorization (STA) that the US FCC can issue. If you can get something like that, or argue that you're e

  • Some African countries (Score:3, Informative)

    by sbwoodside ( 134679 ) <sbwoodside@yahoo.com> on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @11:29PM (#6346567) Homepage
    Nigeria: open spectrum and heavy Wi-Fi use. However there is tons of interference in Lagos and the regulator recently said they might back out.

    Ghana: Wi-Fi is used a lot but regulation is unclear. Reportedly a hassle to import radios. It's possible to license on the 2.4 bands, which means it's not open spectrum. IDN makes a PC/linux based access point LOCALLY.

    Tanzania: unlicensed 100 mW. license for 100 mW or higher is $50 (per radio). TCC is the regulator.

    South Africa: uses ancient ISM band definition. [1] Regulator recently threatened Wireless ISPs who were using 2.4 for outdoor point-to-point links!

    Kenya: no clear regulation, not much use. But new government seems to be moving towards open spectrum. CCK is regulator

    Uganda: open spectrum. heavy use of Wi-Fi. BushNet is one ISP that is very progressive.

    simon

    [1] the ancient Industrial, Scientific, and Medical (ISM) band definition didn't allow "carrier" use to carry any telecomm/internet traffic. Now there are no type-of-use restrictions AT ALL on 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz, but some countries still use the obsolete ISM definition by mistake.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Say yur prayers, yuh flea-pickin' varmint!" -- Yosemite Sam

Close