FCC - upcoming agenda item - GlobalStar and 2.4GHz Chan 14

[sfx2000]

Something you want to keep an eye on...

GlobalStar uses frequency just adjacent to the ISM band for their downlinks - they're proposing to put terrestrial AP's in their licensed frequencies - this is directly abutting the 802.11b/g/n channel 11 - with no guard bands.

Just as with LightSquared and GPS - the ISM band is heavily used for the public benefit - and having GlobalStar launch commercial services without sufficient guard bands is contrary to the public good.

GlobalStar Information -- Link Here

One person's perspective here

 

[stevech]

Far greater negative impact would have come from muni-WiFi (Earthlink, et al). Fortunately those projects were abandoned by Earthlink, and most fell out of use by cities.

It's odd that GlobalStar would try this, given they've gone broke more than once. But papa Qualcomm has deep pockets.

 

[azazel1024]

Hopefully it falls on its face like most efforts. I know it won't, but it would be awful nice if the FCC gave us at least up through channel 14. All things considered, if we could get through Channel 15 and give us 80MHz of spectrum...sigh. A pair of 40MHz 2.4GHz non-overlapping networks would be dreamy.

Or better yet, 4 20MHz ones.

2.4GHz is going to live on long in to the future as the default wireless access frequency band and it would be nice to see the FCC try to do at least a small amount to reduce congestion in the space. Giving us another ~190MHz in 5GHz is all nice and good, but even 20MHz in 2.4MHz might, in some ways, help even more.

 

[stevech]

in the US (No. Amercia?) the higher frequencies are prohibited. As I recall, it was due to worries about airport radar receivers. I wonder how that plays into GlobalStar's intents?

 

[azazel1024]

It could be co-related, but I know on 5GHz transmit power is limited on a number of different channels and off limits completely on a lot of 5GHz channels because of weather radars and long range navigation. Its C-band (5-8GHz).

So, not sure on 2.4GHz. Its S-band, but I dont know what specific frequencies are commonly used, other than 2-4GHz. I know some of it is used for terminal radar guidance, long range radar and some marine radar, but I don't know what specific frequencies are generally used.

Still...if its possible to, it would be amazing if the FCC could leverage 20MHz more for 2.4GHz wifi users.

Maybe also set aside some of the longer frequencies for JUST wifi usage. Like, move to require some of 900MHz be set aside for only Wifi. Or let us have access to some of the, I think it is, 3.6-3.8GHz stuff that they've been experimenting with (I think its only used for WISP right now)...not as ideal as 2.4GHz...but a lot better than 5.2-5.8GHz.

 

[remixedcat]

It could be co-related, but I know on 5GHz transmit power is limited on a number of different channels and off limits completely on a lot of 5GHz channels because of weather radars and long range navigation. Its C-band (5-8GHz).

So, not sure on 2.4GHz. Its S-band, but I dont know what specific frequencies are commonly used, other than 2-4GHz. I know some of it is used for terminal radar guidance, long range radar and some marine radar, but I don't know what specific frequencies are generally used.

Still...if its possible to, it would be amazing if the FCC could leverage 20MHz more for 2.4GHz wifi users.

Maybe also set aside some of the longer frequencies for JUST wifi usage. Like, move to require some of 900MHz be set aside for only Wifi. Or let us have access to some of the, I think it is, 3.6-3.8GHz stuff that they've been experimenting with (I think its only used for WISP right now)...not as ideal as 2.4GHz...but a lot better than 5.2-5.8GHz.

Agreed. We need to be better with allocation and I was wondering also about the 3.5-4.x range as well.

I think very soon we are gonna need something better then the current wifi tech.

 

[stevech]

It could be co-related, but I know on 5GHz transmit power is limited on a number of different channels and off limits completely on a lot of 5GHz channels because of weather radars and long range navigation. Its C-band (5-8GHz).

So, not sure on 2.4GHz. Its S-band, but I dont know what specific frequencies are commonly used, other than 2-4GHz. I know some of it is used for terminal radar guidance, long range radar and some marine radar, but I don't know what specific frequencies are generally used.

Still...if its possible to, it would be amazing if the FCC could leverage 20MHz more for 2.4GHz wifi users.

Maybe also set aside some of the longer frequencies for JUST wifi usage. Like, move to require some of 900MHz be set aside for only Wifi. Or let us have access to some of the, I think it is, 3.6-3.8GHz stuff that they've been experimenting with (I think its only used for WISP right now)...not as ideal as 2.4GHz...but a lot better than 5.2-5.8GHz.

the 5.4GHz band in most countries has special regulations requiring DFS (dynamic freq. selection) where the radio must listen at specific intervals to assure there are no other signals. Also, in 5.4, many regulatory domains require dynamic transmit power (use the least power necessary for the committed bit rate for the application.) I don't think any countries require these in the 5.8GHz band - which is not unlicensed/ISM everywhere on the planet.

One country I know of has a regulation prohibiting the use of 2.4GHz outdoors. Period. Unless you beg for a special license for use in unpopulated areas. I think this regulation was due to the short-lived Muni-WiFi as we saw from Earthlink in the US (now kaput).

I recall that the radars of concern are at 2.7GHz but have wide open receiver front-ends. Seems like these radars would be more affected by the 2.5GHz band (the old MMDS band). Now, some of that band is Federal Gov. for flight tests w/munitions (in the US) and some was auctioned by our lovely FCC (think $$$) and AT&T is has a big portion, to be used as the AWS band. Wider channels but at 2.5GHz, as compared with typ. 10MHz channels for 4G LTE in 700MHz with better building penetration.

Political comment: These obscene FCC auctions, for 30 years now, have yielded 100's of $Billions for the FCC. They turn in some of it to the US General budget. The cellular operators just pass on the auction costs (huge) to you and I via our cellular bills. In doing so, we are paying to use our God-given ether.
Why doesn't the media expose this scam to Joe the plumber?

 

[remixedcat]

Yes it make me a ragekitteh to see these companies sit on the spectrum and do NOTHING with it.

 

[azazel1024]

Frankly I don't think we should be auctioning it at all.

I think that the FCC needs to set it all aside and parcel out licenses to parts of the spectrum that they deem should have licenses. They set the price, no auction crap.

Have 4 options on the spectrum.

1) Gov't use only
2) Unlicensed use (with whatever restrictions, like radiation strength)
3) Single licensed user
4) Common carrier

Frankly I don't think that Verizon, AT&T, etc should be given exclusive license to any of their spectrum. All of them should have to share it. WHAT!, you say, CONGESTION!, you say. BS. Give a wide swath to all of them and they can figure out a way to share equitably (with FCC side seat driving).

We already have modems that are more than happy enough to do 5 bands. Would it really be that hard to do more?

So we give everyone access to all the current cellular bands and enforce cellular network operator interconnects. Its not THAT much of a technological barrier to enforce interoperability and spectrum sharing on the cell companies. Then just charge an admission price based on usage. Have 1,000 customers, get charged one price, 10 million, get charge a higher price. So long as you follow the regulation and interconnect agreements, you are good.

More so than wired service, Wireless needs to effectively be common carrier as it applies to spectrum.

Wired does to, but for somewhat different reasons.