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 just a codename for red tape... (Score:5, Informative)
"Massport"... sounds like it's a business or something, but it's just a trendy name for the Massachusetts Port Authority, which is just a branch of the state government trying to sound a little more important than they really are.
Re:It's just a codename for red tape... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:It's just a codename for red tape... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's just a codename for red tape... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's just a codename for red tape... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's the FCC's bandwidth, not anybody else's (Score:5, Interesting)
It's the public's. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going to go dance in the street.
Re:It's the public's. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's the public's. (Score:3, Insightful)
You can certainly vote against whoever appoints the incumbents at FCC and, if enough people agree with you, get a replacement who will put in people you'd approve. Go right ahead and do it. Talk to the candidates and make sure they understand what you want and why you think it would be good for the
Not so Fast (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not so Fast (Score:2)
And isn't an airport something that's used in Interstate Commerce???
Technically they have no authority to govern intrastate radio emissions.
One question - just WTF is the difference between intertstate and intrastate radio emissions??
Use of the Radio spectrum is covered by international agreements - which pretty much guarantees that this is a Federal not state matter.
Re:Not so Fast (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not so Fast (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not so Fast (Score:3, Informative)
In U.S. v. Southwestern Cable Co [findlaw.com]., 392 U.S. 157 (1968), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the FCC has jurisdiction over an intrastate cable television company carrying signals exclusively in California between Los Angeles and San Diego. It may be arguable that since the usage of radio frequencies is regulated by treaty
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 o
Abolish the FCC? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Abolish the FCC? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Abolish the FCC? (Score:2)
A Most Excellent decision (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A Most Excellent decision (Score:5, Interesting)
When the FCC gives bandwidth space to the people, it belongs to the people.
Re:A Most Excellent decision (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A Most Excellent decision (Score:3, Insightful)
I may be talking out of my ass, but it makes sense to me that massively cheap and widespread Wifi is goin
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:A Most Excellent decision (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A Most Excellent decision (Score:4, Funny)
Not active jamming devices, but I doubt that anyone in their right mind would prosecute someone for building a structure with metal walls. One that just happens to be a Faraday cage and blocks all or most radio signals.
Re:A Most Excellent decision (Score:4, Funny)
Re:A Most Excellent decision (Score:2)
Full Faraday buildings (Score:2)
Turning a building into a Faraday cage isn't that difficult of a proposition. It requires some money and a little construction, but beyond that it's straightforward.
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
Re:A Most Excellent decision (Score:2)
Re:A Most Excellent decision (Score:2)
Re:A Most Excellent decision (Score:2)
all your frequencies... (Score:4, Funny)
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:all your frequencies... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:all your frequencies... (Score:2)
Colleges (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Colleges (Score:5, Informative)
Yes.
Just as the FCC, some years ago, also banned cities and counties from using zoning laws to ban satellite dishes and other legal radio antennas.
Re:Colleges (Score:2)
Re:Colleges (Score:2)
Think of it this way. When you move into the dorm, you are signing some housing contract (that you never read) but you supposedly read it. In it probably has something about:
-you can't cook in your room
-you can't smoke in the room
-you can't make excessively loud noises at ungodly hours
-you can't walk around naked after a shower
-you can't slap a wireless
Re:Colleges (Score:2)
Re:Colleges (Score:2, Funny)
"Last time I checked, radio waves didn't shoot out of our asses :)"
The FCC regulates spectrum, not rectum.
/sorry :-P
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:Colleges (Score:3, Insightful)
You can set up WAPs all you want. You just can't plug 'em into their hardware. If Bellsloth'll run you DSL to the dorms, plug it into that and have at... The ruling doesn't say they have to allow you to plug into their network. It says they can't tell you you can't have your own WAPs hooked into your own network.
-JDF
Re:Colleges (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, you should have watchdog agencies like the ACLU ready to defend you, but unfortunately, the ACLU likes to cherry pick its cases. Want to take a guess of how many concealed carry cases the ACLU has taken on?
The bottom line is that if the ACLU decides that your case doesn't fit their agenda, they won't take it.
Re:Colleges (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm but where is the line? (Score:2)
If you're running a secure wireless network where you need a passkey to access it, how is the college going to know you're linked to their primary network unless they either obtain or crack your key an
Re:Colleges (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Colleges (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd guess that depends on whether your wireless network would be attached to the school's network. If yes, then it should still be well within the school's rights to include a clause in their network's acceptable use policy prohibiting the creation of any unauthorized wireless access points on their network. If no, on the other hand, this decision may provide a useful precedent.
Re:Colleges (Score:2)
Either way, the campus can have final say.
Ultimately though, who the hell gave the damn FCC all this power. Gah!
Re:Colleges (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Colleges (Score:2)
Even stranger then really. A private organization (like a private school, or even a controlling body at a public school) should have say over activities happening on campus. They've even got rules at some schools about no businesses out of dorm rooms, they'll find ways to continue to regulate wifi and other things as well.
This is going to be interesting for the FCC to enforce though with lots of little guys wanting to do their own thing.
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.
Re:Colleges (Score:2)
I think by extension the same theory applies, and that the students can setup their own systems if they wish.
However...
IMNSHO, the commission essentially blew it, big time, with this rule makeing. Now there will be huge amounts of interference from so many radios all running in the 802.11 bands. The users are essentially being told to suck it up and tolerate it. But at airports in particular, national s
Re:Colleges (Score:2)
Security stuff should be encrypted, end of discussion. What makes you think a clever individual couldn't eavesdrop a wired pipe? The fact that it is wired gives too many people a false sense of security.
Re:Colleges (Score:2, Insightful)
This is for unlicensed bands. If you need spectrum upon which NATIONAL SECURITY rests, you use LICENSED spectrum, where it is a FELONY to use without permission. Duh. Airlines DO use licensed spectrum... and unlicensed.
THe issue here is an airport using commonly used unlicensed equipment and insising that the airlines that use it are NOT ALLOWED to use similar equipment on their own, but instead must use the airport's and pay the airport for that use..
Re:Colleges (Score:2)
Cheers, Gene
Re:Colleges (Score:2, Informative)
It should. However, that necessarily mean you can set up a wireless network where a group of friends all shares a single connection to save money: most schools have a clause saying that only one person or computer may use a given connection. A group of twenty people tried that at my school: when the administration found out, they were all required to back pay for personal connections.
Re:Think Again (Score:2)
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:Can Management at an Expo say no to Wi-Fi (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can Management at an Expo say no to Wi-Fi (Score:2)
Re:Can Management at an Expo say no to Wi-Fi (Score:3, Informative)
This decision says that they can't stop you from running your own network on Wi-Fi, not that they have to let you attach that network to their network.
Re:Can Management at an Expo say no to Wi-Fi (Score:2)
This is the perfect answer to the question asked.
I do appreciate your optimism... (Score:3, Insightful)
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:I do appreciate your optimism... (Score:5, Informative)
Emphasis mine.
You'll find another clause in your lease that goes something like this:
"If any clause of this contract is found to be void by law it does invalidate other legal clauses."
You see, they recognize that terms of your lease might well be legally unenforcable, void, and if they don't have that clause such could be held to void the entire lease.
You are not bound by void clauses, even if you sign them. Your landlord relies on your ingnorance of this fact to get you to follow the terms he wishes.
This statement by the FCC is that any such clause is void because your landlord has no legal authority to so restrict you, even by contract. It is prohibited.
No, I am not a lawyer, but I am a landlord.
KFG
Re:I do appreciate your optimism... (Score:2)
Your landlord relies on your ingnorance of this fact to get you to follow the terms he wishes.
And if you prove, and exercise, your lack of ignorance, you may have a difficult time convincing your landlord to renew your lease next year.
Re:I do appreciate your optimism... (Score:2)
The airports will forbid the use of non-airport systems via a condition in the carriers lease, and a clause in the boilerplate on your ticket. (Which you are required to have to get through the security gate....) So I suspect this will be a short lived victory.
Re:I do appreciate your optimism... (Score:5, Informative)
There are very few exceptions to this rule. Legitimate safey regulations (which is very narrowly defined), regulations related to the preservation of properties listed on the National Register of Historic places, you can't damage someone elses property with your antenna (drilling holes in a railing or roof you don't own), reasonable size restrictions, and finally it has to be in your own private space, not a common area.
If you take a look at a lot of apartment complexes these days you'll notice a lot of satellite antennas mounted to buckets sitting on decks. This ruling is why. The apartment complexes hate it, they think they're ugly, but there is nothing they can do about it.
Incidentally this same ruling was ammended to apply to fixed wireless, and yes they do mention Internet access. I don't think it's too difficult to say that this existing ruling already preempts any potential contract clause that you're worried about. At a minimum I think it shows how the FCC would end up ruling on the issue.
I can't seem to find this new ruling online yet. But I wouldn't be surprised if it also already dealt with this issue. I would imagine that the airlines lease included some sort of clause like this.
Re:I do appreciate your optimism... (Score:2)
Re:I do appreciate your optimism... (Score:2, Insightful)
In other words.. if anyone else does it, it's invalid.
Your landlord could make you sign a contract banning the presence of wifi equipment befor ehe rents you the house, however
if he permits you to have such equipment in the house, he CANNOT regulate your use if ot.
Re:I do appreciate your optimism... (Score:2)
I forget... (Score:5, Funny)
What doesn't the FCC have jurisdiction over? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the ruling is a good one, but something about the previous sentence bothers me: I don't like the idea that the FCC can decide what it does and does not control. Does anyone see the potential for abuse? *puts on tinfoil hat*
Re:What doesn't the FCC have jurisdiction over? (Score:2)
Re:What doesn't the FCC have jurisdiction over? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't like it, take 'em to court. The courts CAN tell 'em they're full of hogwash.
But in this case the courts would almost certainly rule that they are right - that congress DID give them that exclusive regulatory authority, and that the supremacy clause extends that authority over the states and their subdivisions.
A bigger issue than it seems... (Score:2, Interesting)
Hey... (Score:3, Funny)
It is April first?! (Score:5, Funny)
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:Cell phone use on airplanes? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Cell phone use on airplanes? (Score:5, Informative)
You know that AirPhone system? That's basically a cell network but with the sites spread far apart so there's no interference. One proposal I've seen is to put a micro-cell on the airplane. It tells everyone's phones to go to a low power mode, which prevents the contact with multiple ground sites, and routes the calls through the AirPhone system those. I'm thinking they would stll charge an arm and a leg for those calls, but that would certainly help minimize the use.
Because beyond the RF issues, the sanity of the other passengers is at stake. People tend to talk loudly to their phones, especially in environments with high background noise - like an airplane. Having a few loud chatty people in an enclosed space with a lot of people trying to read or sleep would be disastrous.
Cellphones DO interfere with avionics. (Score:5, Informative)
The expensive payphones installed into airliners have been engineered and *EXHAUSTIVELY* tested to weed out any interference with the airliner's avionics. That's about half why they're so expensive to use. Of course, greed is the other reason. If the captain of an aircraft doesn't want you to operate electronic toys on board his aircraft, you must respect his wishes, he *is* the boss after all.
I'm a private pilot and own a small single engine airplane. I have both a small GPS system and an older Loran system to augment my navigation. I also carry my cellphone with me everywhere I fly, but I DO turn it off because I've found out that just being on in standby mode, it will noticeably lessen the Loran's ability to lock onto the ground transmitters. The cellphone operates at near microwave frequencies, the Loran operates at about 100KHz, a rather long wavelength. They are at complete opposite ends of the RF spectrum, yet the interference is plainly observable, most likely caused by RF harmonics messing with the sensitive timing in the Loran.
Re:Cellphones DO interfere with avionics. (Score:2)
Re:Cellphones DO interfere with avionics. (Score:5, Informative)
From 35,000 feet, line of sight covers most of an entire state. That means the cell network on the ground is going to have a heart attack when it discovers "gaah! I'm getting an identical cell signal in 917 different cell zones! What do I do?!"
Basically, the cell network wasn't designed for airborne transmitters. When the cell network was being designed, it was just beyond anybody's imagination that cell phones would someday be so prevalent and pervasive that you'd have hundreds of them on each and every 747 flight.
Yes, I used to work in telecom. Yes, we actually had to deal with this sort of thing on occasion.
Re:Cell phone use on airplanes? (Score:2)
Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't cause interference. When a text message or incoming call is coming into my cell phone, and I have it sitting on my desk, I can tell it is coming because the monitor wavers and my speakers click for a few seconds. If it can affect that sort of equipment, I don't want to know what a plane full of cell phones would do to the instruments that are used to fly it.
Big government (Score:3, Insightful)
Emergency Services? (Score:2)
Aye, Here's the Rub (Score:5, Informative)
In short, the Authority controlling the terminal (varies by city/state) wants to control Wireless access to enable 3rd parties to come in (concourse is one of the larger) to sell wireless access with the authority getting profit from the deal.
The Dominating tennant, usually an airline, has quite a bit of say (They're actually responsible for maintaining the facility set forth by the authority), but has been fighting an uphill battle with frequency allocation. In Short, the authority is looking to make money. The dominating tennant is looking for stability. My company operates a 802.11b network throughout a terminal and we were 'assigned' a channel by the dominating tennant. Obviously, I could run on any frequency I choose, but if I did, they'd shutdown my equipment (my antennas are on their roof, in their IDFs, powered by their power, etc.) and prohibit me from operating. They can, kick me out of the terminal if I won't impact them too much (There's a termination for convienence clause in these leases) or, simply over power my network by broadcasting the same SSID and dropping traffic to an VLAN that goes no where.
Yes, the FCC says I have certain rights, but when you choose to co-exist with someone who's ultimately a) paying you and/or b) allowing you to make money, politics plays a huge deal so it's best to work it out peacefully.
Re:Aye, Here's the Rub (Score:2)
I cannot have every company under our roof setting up their wireless networks with
Always a gain for WARDRIVING! (Score:2)
Of course, this just means more fodder for wardriving!
I recall something about CMU (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I recall something about CMU (Score:2)
At CMU and other schools offering campus-wide wireless access, there's really no *need* to run your own WAP
citywide networks (Score:4, Insightful)
This statement from the FAQs [usurf.com] could indicate that: It's important to have the involvement of city government in approving this type of deployment
Why? Maybe if the service were free and tax supported, not subscription based. All they really provide is WiMax routers on lamp poles and the 43 Mb/s backhaul. (You supply your own WiFi card/router.) The disruptive technology [pbs.org] that Cringely extolled recently, regarding Linksys/Sveasoft DIY mesh networks, is much preferable.
What Rio Rancho gets out of the deal is subsidized bandwidth for emergency services, which taxes ought to cover. Now government officials have an interest in suppressing DIY mesh networks. And Rio Rancho is being held up as a model for other communities.
The FCC ruling is very much in the spirit of Open Source.
FCC versus private sector (Score:3, Informative)
So landlords could restrict tenants rights, regardless of what the FCC does.
Re:FCC versus private sector (Score:3, Interesting)
Not so. The FCC has ruled in earlier cases that a homeowner's association cannot prohibit use of satellite dishes even if there is a rule against them (forcing owners to subscribe to a local cable company that pays the association kickbacks, for example.)
A homeow
That's interesting... (Score:2)
It wasn't until Reagan deregulated them in terms of commercial length (7 commercial ad time:: 30 air time) such that they could do as they please. Ta-da! infomercials.
Re:Yes but... (Score:2)
I'm laughing at you, not with you.
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 shiel