Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking Hardware

FCC To Expand Wireless Spectrum 149

Posted by CmdrTaco from the well-isn't-that-nice-of-them dept.
Makarand writes "According to this article in the SF Chronicle the FCC will expand the wireless spectrum to push broadband into rural areas. However, consumer groups were quick to point out that these frequencies are not powerful enough to handle long range broadband communications. They want the FCC to open lower frequencies that can penetrate through walls and trees for wireless applications in rural areas."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC To Expand Wireless Spectrum More

FCC To Expand Wireless Spectrum

Comments Filter:

  • What about Ricochet? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RobertB-DC ( 622190 ) * on Thursday November 13, 2003 @07:04PM (#7469398) Homepage Journal
    Sometimes, the best links on an article are the ones that go to yet another story.

    SFGate.com also has this interesting article [sfgate.com] from almost a year ago on the return of Ricochet [ricochet.com]:
    Ricochet is also targeting residents who can't get high-speed access otherwise. Its signals are sent from radios on poles and rooftops, allowing users with laptops and other mobile devices to stay connected while they roam around.

    It sounds like Ricochet is going to use the unregulated 900 MHz band to do the same thing that the FCC is going to do with regulated spectrum (that's already in use by the military).

    Of course, another kicker is this paragraph:
    Aerie Networks Inc. has resurrected Ricochet, spending $8.25 million for technology and equipment that Metricom spent $1.3 billion developing.

    Of all the times to have spent $8,250,000 on lottery tickets [txlottery.org]!

    • Re:What about Ricochet? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by mrmoa ( 588841 )
      It may be on its way out...again. According to this story [rcrnews.com] the company is "actively evaluating a number of options relative to its business prospects". In my book that's code for "trying to figure out how to make next week's payroll."

    • Re:What about Ricochet? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by t0qer ( 230538 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @07:47PM (#7469792) Homepage Journal
      I'll tell you about ricochet since I used to work there a long time ago.

      I have several post related to them, and usually I copy 'n paste them here. A few of them I targetted specific individuals that I felt were useless and probably contributed to their demise, undoubtably these individuals know about my posts because by the third or fouth time I touched based on this subject other "insiders" responded saying my post was nothing more than a troll. Fuck them, and fuck their Los Gatos rich kid clique they rode in on.

      Ricochet didn't die because of a bad product, they died from pisspoor management decisions. These bad managers surrounded themselves with even more idiots just to keep themselves looking good. Just because shit has perfume, it's still shit.

      I recently saw a fellow ex-metricommer at a bar I frequent. I didn't recognize him because we worked in different departments (He worked for biztell, a company outsourced to sell ricochet)

      Basically the story he told me corroborated my original theories of piss poor management leading to the companies demise a few years after I left.

      Biztell was making the numbers for metricom, They had outperformed the other two companies partnered to sell the product. I think MCI and ATT were the other two companies licensed to resell the ricochet. (If i'm wrong on these two please correct me)

      Somewhere along the line a new CEO came in to take over ricochet. As with all the previous CEO's he used his business network to raise some unneeded capital for the company. When they were still in their Los Gatos location which was a building owned by one of the Chairmen, they were actually starting to creep towards profitability, since the rent was low and Biztell was making their sales quota.

      For some reason, this didn't sit well with the new CEO. During a lucid dream he had while smoking crack (joke) he got the idea that ricochet needed a downtown SJ address. Rather than seek pre-existing space, he decided to take all that capital he had just recieved, and invest it in real estate.

      Later a suitable location was selected, and construction began on the new 2 building 4 story glass encased cubicle farm. (I heard the property was purchased from the CEO's buddy, the construction contract was given to another buddy, and everyone was lining everyone elses pockets on the whole deal)

      Now all idiot CEO's know the best way to justify even more funding is to show a high burn rate. To facilitate this even more useless corpses were hired, and a add campaign began. Rather than focus on the merits of the technology the ads featured a sexy long legged model driving around in a silver Jaguar ala James bond. By the time you got done watching the ads, other than the quick flash of the ricochet name across the screen, it didn't really sell anything. I remember watching these ads and thinking how stupid they are.

      At the same time prices for both the modem and the service were raised.

      Well, as all stupid idea's go, the new corporate HQ, the ad campaign, and the rush of new employees drained the metricom coffers faster than a lapdance at your favorite strip club. Instead of being accountable for their actions, the executive board seeked a scapegoat for the declining sales. Biztell's contract was not renewed, and sales of the ricochet service plummeted along with their stock mcom.

      Well we all know the end result. People came to the new corporate HQ one day to find it locked, and a bankrupcy notice glued to the door. It was over.

      Now let's fast forward to the present.

      Phonix networks (Not sure if thats right) Purchased the ricochet network for pennies on the dollar. I personally have no contacts within the company, but from what my freind whom I saw at the bar last week told me, it's no different than when mcom was owned by a bunch of rich guys from Los Gatos. /. featured a story about the buyout 2 years ago, yet the new company has yet to bring service back. Again pisspoor mana
    • It sounds like Ricochet is going to use the unregulated 900 MHz band to do the same thing that the FCC is going to do with regulated spectrum
      What, you mean this Ricochet? [denverpost.com]

      • ... WiFi. However, it was ubiquitous in most of SF Bay Area. I'd buy it again except that the little NIMBY town where I live never allowed the poletop relay units. In Mountain View and Walnut Creek, I usually got 75 to 100 kbit speeds. The poletop units are still out there, slowly being decimated by vandals and the weather.

        As for 5 GHz being a wimpy spectrum, no part of the spectrum is wimpier than another, but 5GHz does suffer rain and fog attenuation.

        I friend from college operates a successful rural ISP
    • "It sounds like Ricochet is going to use the unregulated 900 MHz band" That's all that we need. More high duty cycle devices filling up the 902-928MHz unlicensed bands. Something has to be done about these "digitally modulated" band hogs. It has been less than a year since the FCC loosened the restrictions in the unlicensed bands and stuff like this is already happening. I myself have experienced first hand interference from these unlicensed wireless 900MHz devices selfishly rendering the band useless.

  • I can't wait for it to reach Britain (Score:5, Funny)

    by paulhar ( 652995 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @07:04PM (#7469400)
    I live in Rural Britain. We need the FCC to enable much lower signals so that we can _finally_ get broadband.

    I can't wait :)

    Hurrah!

  • Hey, more Hz is good.

    They will find uses for each frequency range. Even if not the best, it's a start.

    I think wireless networking is the coolest personal computing invention since the mouse.

    • Re:The more the better. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Aardpig ( 622459 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @07:29PM (#7469639)

      They will find uses for each frequency range.

      ...all the while ignoring the fact that many frequency ranges are already used by astronomers to observe and study the universe. By polluting our window on the Cosmos, we risk losing the chance to discover how it all began. *Sigh*.

      • That's what the Lunar farside observatory is for -- if they ever get around to building one.
      • I think you're losing site of the big picture here. ;)
      • ...all the while ignoring the fact that many frequency ranges are already used by astronomers to observe and study the universe. By polluting our window on the Cosmos, we risk losing the chance to discover how it all began. *Sigh*.

        There is a great spot ready for such an observatory on the far side of the moon. The reality is that the political will to observe and study pure science at it's finest is not. To hold back the progress of society because of SETI or astronomical reasons is foolhardy.

        Perhaps som

    • Re:The more the better. (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I'm against it if it starts consuming the important frequencies...

      Like the Ham radio bands. too many times the ham radio bands are sacrificed for the good of selling some damned service that will be done half assed.

      EVERYTHING that has been invented in radio was invented in Ham radio first.

      hurt the ham bands, and you hurt innovation.

  • Why choose a frequency that doesn't work? (Score:3, Funny)

    by burgburgburg ( 574866 ) <splisken06@@@email...com> on Thursday November 13, 2003 @07:06PM (#7469424)
    The move was supported by high-technology heavyweights Microsoft Corp. and Intel Corp.

    Oh, okay. I'll stop complaining now. Everything will be alright.

  • Whoa wait a minute here. Us rural folk out here in South Dakota just got electricity, now you want to give us wireless. Does this mean I could surf the net from my covered wagon and be warned of an Indian raid by my friends through my MSN Messenger

  • Excelent news but what about developing Wi-Fi protocol that does not have inherent security flaws?.. or is it realm of consumer education how to turn on encription and password on the wireless routers?..

  • as long as (Score:5, Funny)

    by OwlofCreamCheese ( 645015 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @07:08PM (#7469445)
    I just want it to be something small enough so it goes through me. wireless networks are everywhere these days... and somehow I like the idea that wherever I am there will be porn in my heart.

  • You don't want much more power! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Garak ( 100517 ) <chris@nOspaM.insec.ca> on Thursday November 13, 2003 @07:09PM (#7469456) Homepage Journal
    You don't want much more power, not only for security reasons but for frequency reuse!

    Keeping the power down lets you use the same frequencys over and over again in the same city. If you went with more power and lower frequencys you would interfear with people accross town using the same frequencys.

    You don't need more power to go the distance. For point to point links you can use high gain dish's to go the distance. To cover larger areas you just deploy lots of cheap lower power access points/routers.

    • You don't want much more power, not only for security reasons but for frequency reuse!

      Power level has nothing to do with security.

      • Re:You don't want much more power! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @08:14PM (#7470005) Homepage Journal
        "Power level has nothing to do with security."

        Yes it does. The less you use, the closer somebody has to be to your physical location to peek into your signal.

        Think, then reply.

        • Re:You don't want much more power! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by SheldonYoung ( 25077 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @08:40PM (#7470160)
          Again, no. There's security but it's as in false-sense-of.

          You can't assume how far your signal can be detected. If you're counting on distance to help protect your signal, unless it's a veeeery long distance without physical access, you are deluding yourself. What if someone is listening with very sensitive equipment? What if a firmware upgrade increases the output power of your gear? What if it's the office in the floor above you doing the evesdropping? There are a lot of what-ifs.

          If you're thinking about signal strength in the same breath as security you have a lot to learn about what it means to be secure.
          • and YOU have a lot to learn about what it means to be secure as well... lets assume someone wants to get into your network, you use encryption such as the current wifi encryption incarnation, the more packets someone gets ahold of our of your encryption the faster they crack it, thus if your power level is higher it is easier for someone to break in, security isnt a wall a wall that stops everything, it is barbwire that deters people on foot from coming in.
            • You cannot detect someone snooping on your wireless traffic. You don't know if they've been at it for an hour or a month and you certainly can't rely on the attacker only getting a few packets. And definitely not by assuming the volume of packets you can get from a weak signal.

              If your encryption can be cracked in a reasonable length of time, you have to assume it will be cracked and account for it.

              Security is a binray condition, you are either secure or you're not. If you aren't you can choose your le

              • Security is a binray condition, you are either secure or you're not.

                Then you're not. If you're connected to a network, someone could get in. If FBI agents could be outside your home logging your every keystroke through a Tempest attack, you have to assume they are logging every keystroke and account for it.

          • "What if it's the office in the floor above you doing the evesdropping?"

            You defeated your own argument. Thanks for pointing out that lowering the power causes an intruder to be in a very specific area.
            • No, I didn't contradict anything. If anybody can snoop on your unsecured traffic you are by definition insecure. It's frightening to think that if someone wanted to hack you all they need to do is rent an office and sit in a comfy room for a day with a laptop. No physical security to bother with, just sitting playing Quake while the machine captures an virtually endless stream of packets.

              Listen people, merely reducing the risk does not mean your wireless is secure.
              • "Listen people, merely reducing the risk does not mean your wireless is secure."

                Um.

                "You don't want much more power, not only for security reasons but for frequency reuse!"

                He did not say: "To make your wireless network secure, lower the power!" If he had said that, then your point would be worthwhile. But he didn't. He meant it as another aspect of it, and you've confirmed that lowering the power does assist in securing your network. This flies right in the face of your original statement: "Power
      • Its one thing if you have an unsecured access point that can be accessed by someone accross the street, its a completely different thing to have an unsecured access point accessible accross town.
        • No, it's not.

          Why would it matter? Because the bad guys hate to drive? Because you're counting on nobody really bad living on the same block as you?
          • Uhm, because then everyone's card will associate with your AP and leech all your bandwidth? Its one thing if you have free bandwidth within a few hundred feet, its another thing if its a few miles. And also, if theres access for a few miles, everyone else's will overlap, providing that much more bandwidth for anyone who wants it...
    • Isn't this for RURAL areas? You know, the ones with not very many people?
    • You don't need more power to go the distance. For point to point links you can use high gain dish's to go the distance. To cover larger areas you just deploy lots of cheap lower power access points/routers.

      What's the difference? An antenna system is concerned with overall system gain, which is proportional to power and antenna gain. If you reduce the power, thinking, "Yeah, now we can reuse the frequencies", and then put up high-gain antennas to reach the same areas, the effective signal strength is

  • Wireless in the forest (Score:3, Funny)

    by bucketoftruth ( 583696 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @07:10PM (#7469466)
    I never have any problems with my wireless connection in the trees. They don't stand a chance against my wireless tool [stihlusa.com]

  • They did this on purpose. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by PhilipPeake ( 711883 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @07:15PM (#7469516)
    BPL (broadband over electricity distribution lines) has been pretty much abandoned/banned in most of the world because of the interference it causes. Of course, in the US, interference has to be balanced against MONEY, so its still somehwta alive here. Especially with the newest version, which doesn't spew its guts all over the SW spectrum, but zaps the... wait for it ... 5GHz band!

    No wonder the FCC is so benevolent as to donate this spectrum to wireless internet services - they know its about to become useless thanks to pollution from BPL.

    • "Especially with the newest version, which doesn't spew its guts all over the SW spectrum, but zaps the... wait for it ... 5GHz band!"

      WTF? How did they find this out? Customers' microwave ovens started blowing up ala Masters of the Universe?

      No, seriously, short of having your dish pointing through power lines, how do you screw up a communications frequency that's more or less line-of-sight?
  • What a surprise - we got the 5GHz band with it's complete lack of utility.

    Why are we allowed it? Cause it's no use to anyone else. It has all the problems of the 2.4GHz band without the balancing advantage of upper atmospheric scatter like with 10Ghz.

    When can I have my Wi-Fi LAN runing on ELF :)

    Q.

  • Lets shake up the radio spectrum with broad WiFi range so we can all get affordable broadband access instead through cable or dsl. The only news of Wi-Fi and broadband is usually about Starbucks.

  • This just in: FCC Changes Laws of Physics (Score:5, Funny)

    by kinema ( 630983 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @07:27PM (#7469624)
    "the FCC will expand the wireless spectrum"

    I'm not sure if the FCC has the authority to widen the electro-magnetic spectrum.

  • Anything would be a step forward (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Zygote-IC- ( 512412 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @07:27PM (#7469625) Homepage
    I'm a mere seven miles outside a city. It's not a metropolis by any means, but those seven miles are the difference between DSL/Cable and absoultely no real broadband.
    And no, DirecWay does not count.
    Anything they would do to close that gap and allow us people who live out in "the country" to participate in the broadband revolution would be a blessing.
    I keep hearing that broadband is failing because it costs too much or there is no real content that people want. No one ever mentions the fact that there is a large segment of the population that flat out has no real options.
    Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going back to downloading my 152 meg game demo. It should be finished sometime before the sun explodes.
    • I know how you feel
      But in your case you have seven miles, I have a 1 minute walk away from my house to the end of my road to find Cable lines where the cable company refuses to run down my road due to "not enough people" or some other bull they want to feed me.

      They tell me I can pay to have the cable ran, but i would never be compensated for any income they generate. Great Deal!

      Also, I am only a few hundred feet outside of the DSL serving area. Too much though for any real performance of DSL.
      • Build a shed at the end of the road. Say it's for the kids to wait for their school bus.

        Install the cable box there. Install a wireless router and an antenna and aim it at your house. Remove branches/trees as required.

        Set up an antenna and AP at the house.

        Would that work in your situation?
    • Can do! We've connected from a hilltop to our office using an Orinoco card and a 20+dB BBQ grill looking dish antenna. It was at least 7 miles.
    • What city? Have you check Verizon Express Network?
  • ULF access sounds _interesting_ Imagine...

    "Captain... Con... we've just been pinged".

    "Pinged? Shit! Red Alert"

    "Sir, there is an incoming message. It says... W...o...u...l...d....you....l...i...k...e....t..o. .."

    "Any more sailor?"

    "Sir yes sir. e..n..l..a..r....g..e....y.ou...r..e.....p....e... ni...s... sir!"
  • I am very familiar with the US spectrum and licencing... But what they really need to do is dedicate a portion of the spectrum for these type of applications.. Not make it Unlicenced... Unlicenced specrum is not the best for a commercial application.. Also.. Just on a note... The whole Spectrum is wireless :) they can't broaden it anymore :)

  • Chart of radio frequencies circa 1996 (Score:5, Informative)

    by LuxFX ( 220822 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @07:56PM (#7469855) Homepage Journal
    It isn't current, but here is a chart [doc.gov] (PDF)
    that shows how the radio bands were divided up in 1996.
  • I think i read an ask slashdot a while back about doing away with Broadcast Television in favor of free (socialized) wireless internet. I didn't oppose to this but many did becaused they still watch broadcast...

    so what i'm trying to ask is... was this bandwidth unallocated, or are we giving something up here?

  • lower frequencies (Score:4, Informative)

    by GigsVT ( 208848 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @08:34PM (#7470133) Journal
    Lower frequencies that can penetrate walls and trees aren't likely going to give you anything you'd consider broadband speeds. You might be able to get a couple Mbits at 900Mhz, but once you get more than a few people sharing it, it's not going to be so hot. To go even lower means less and less bandwidth available.

    • Exactly. You want a low frequency that's available today. Try MURS. Hope you're happy with 9600 bps.

    • Re:lower frequencies (Score:2, Informative)

      by part15guy ( 724057 )
      "Lower frequencies that can penetrate walls and trees aren't likely going to give you anything you'd consider broadband speeds. You might be able to get a couple Mbits at 900Mhz, but once you get more than a few people sharing it, it's not going to be so hot. To go even lower means less and less bandwidth available."

      This is not entirely true. Lower frequencies will require more complicated modulaction schemes to get the same data rates, but it is still possible.

      Also, we should be careful when using the w

      • Lower frequencies will require more complicated modulaction schemes to get the same data rates, but it is still possible.

        What about shannon's law? At least with phone lines we can theoretically cut down the noise by creating a better medium. I don't think we'll be replacing the air with a lower-noise version any time soon.

        Also, we should be careful when using the word "bandwidth" when talking wireless Internet. In the quote above, I think that it is supposed to mean datarates. However, bandwidth from

        • Shannon's law has nothing to do with modulation schemes. There is no theoretical maximum when modulation is left open. Yes, more expensive receiver technology is required to reach those data rates, but it is not impossible.
          • No, shannon's law is most commonly used to talk about the limits of modulation schemes. Your theoretical maximum assumes a noiseless channel. When there is noise on the channel, overly tight modulation schemes wind up with too many errors and retransmissions to compensate for the increased data rate.
            • When there is noise on the channel, overly tight modulation schemes wind up with too many errors and retransmissions to compensate for the increased data rate.

              ... unless you invest in more expensive receiver technology. At one to one comparisons, you are correct. I am not talking about one to one comparisons for equipment used in different bands.

              • ... unless you invest in more expensive receiver technology.

                More expensive receiver technology can't compensate for noise. It's like trying to get a perfectly clear picture of the stars through an expensive telescope. Once you reach a certain point, you can't do any better. The atmosphere gets in your way.

                At one to one comparisons, you are correct. I am not talking about one to one comparisons for equipment used in different bands.

                I'm not either. I am talking about a theoretical limit.

      • Re:lower frequencies (Score:2, Informative)

        by GigsVT ( 208848 )
        Also, we should be careful when using the word "bandwidth" when talking wireless Internet. In the quote above, I think that it is supposed to mean datarates. However, bandwidth from an RF perspective can also mean frequency range

        You are correct in that we must be careful with terminology, but even taken to mean RF bandwidth, my statement is still true.

        At lower frequencies, bands will tend to be smaller. The 2.4Ghz band, IIRC is a couple hundred Mhz across. The 900Mhz band is only what... 5mhz wide?

        The
        • "The 900Mhz band is only what... 5mhz wide?"

          It's 26MHz, but it doesn't matter. Wireless Internet has NO BUSINESS being there. It causes interference and makes it so that NOBODY ELSE can function there (ask anybody who lives near a Waverider site).

          The FCC needs to allocate spectrum for this for everybody's benefit, not just those interested in wireless internet. If path loss is a concern, then raise the power or manufacture equipment that can handle modulation schemes that make operation in the propose

  • How about interferences with hearing aids? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by antdude ( 79039 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @08:46PM (#7470190) Homepage Journal
    My bone conduction hearing aid has interferences with many cellular phones and WAPs (if I am close enough to one).

    Will this FCC's decision going to make the situation worse for those who wear hearing aids like me?
    • You need a better hearing aid, one with better shielding and filtering. Designs that were adequate 10 oe 20 years ago are marginal today. There are many more RF sources today. Modulation techniques like those used by GSM are more likely to result in interference than the modulation techniques used in older devices.
      • Detritus: How much do those cost these days? I have an Oticon [oticon.com] hearing aid with headband (bone conduction hearing). I had this one since 1997/1998 and it was over 800 dollars (U.S.).

        The last time I went to see the audiologist in 1997/1998, I asked about interferences from cellular phones. She said one didn't exist for decent price.

        I will ask again when I go back when it is really time to replace my hearing aid. I just replaced the headband a few months ago due to detoriated wires.
  • I've had wireless internet for about six weeks now, courtesy of KeyOn [keyon.com], and it seems to me it's the way to go. It's as cheap as dial-up, less than half the cost of DSL, and I haven't noticed it slow down much even with four computers online at the same time. It does tend to go offline (sometimes for hours) when it rains, but maybe that's because I'm near extreme range. Fortunately it doesn't rain much in Nevada.

  • That article is clueless (Score:1, Informative)

    by billsf ( 34378 )
    Take it from an experienced analogue engineer. Lets be more direct, the analogue engineer that gave you cheap "wireless" datacom and the analogue engineer who's idea was completely rejected in Silicon Valley. --- You guys there in my old home town are really clueless!

    There are ways to use 'lower' frequencies and not cause interferrence. However using lower frequencies means you MUST sacrafice bandwidth. Sure i know 'broadband' is something different in America than here in Europe. We have quality telephon

  • "New" spectrum is useless for wireless broadband (Score:4, Informative)

    by Brett Glass ( 98525 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @11:09PM (#7471008) Homepage
    Unfortuantely, while the FCC is giving lip service to wireless broadband, its proposed rules actually hurt it rather than help it. The "new" spectrum can't be used outdoors, and the transmitters have to shut up if a signal that looks anything like radar is detected. (Can you say "DoS attack," boys and girls? I knew you could.) What's more, older transmitters operating on that band would have to be removed. So, the FCC's proposed rules are a step backward, not a step forward.
  • FCC management performs as well as CIA, FBI, DOD, NASA, LANL, ... management. Management (2 out of 3) in Government are mediocre to poor performers at their job (US Business is about the same). I do not know any of them to be wife-beaters, but they are employee abusers. They let the foot-soldiers, worker-bees, pack-mules, ... of their organization know that they are in charge of the work-place world, that everyone is replaceable (except themselves), that what you provide to them in the work environment is t
  • the image of a giant death beam blasting away a happy little neighborhood came to mind..

    anyone else have these thoughts?

    because I'd love to have a wifi device that does that :)
  • FCC will expand the wireless spectrum

    Nice trick if you can do it, I guess.
    Like Scotty sez: "Its again' the laws o' Physics."

    To the Engineer the glass is neither half full nor half empty ... just two times too big.
  • these frequencies are not powerful enough

    Wassat mean then? Is 'red' more powerful than 'green'? (does mauve have more RAM?)

  • "FCC will expand the wireless spectrum"

    They can't do that without first changing the laws. And the US Congress can't help them there. I wish them the best of luck in expanding the spectrum, we could use lots more space.

    Meanwhile I think they'll have to make due by juggling some allocation of spectrum.

Slashdot Top Deals

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Close