FCC Behind On 3G Wireless Network 33
dinosaur writes "This Week
The US Federal Communications Commission failed to meet a deadline schedule proposed in October by President Clinton on the rules for identifying additional airwaves for the deployment of third-generation high-speed wireless services. Mark Rubin, FCC Wireless Bureau spokesman, said the proposed rules should be released this week. The FCC expects a final report and interim studies on the third-generation airwaves by March 1, 2001. The New York Times has a story on it (lamerator reg required) while NewsBytes hs another summary without the registration required."
Yet another reason Metricom will win in the end (Score:1)
Ricochet [ricochet.com] is faster, not dependent on FCC approval, and currently working. 3G is...well...coming soon...probably.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...3G needs a bit more thought...
Re:Not the only FCC delay. (Score:1)
Re:I hope they avoid 2.4gig (Score:1)
I thought 2.4GHz was S-band, though? I remember they used to use 2.somethingGHz as radar for catching speeders in the 60's or 70's, and it was S-band. Maybe I'm just talking out of my ass, though; I can't remember the article exactly. (I think it was in Car & Driver a while back.)
--
Re:Not the only FCC delay. (Score:1)
Interested in 3G wireless? (Score:2)
Re:I hope they avoid 2.4gig (Score:1)
The power of a basestation is not that much more than that of a mobile. In engineering a mobile system it is critical to tune the reception of the up-link signal. So transmitting at high powers is useless, just increases interference and reduces frequency reuse. There are much larger sources of non-ionising radiation around, eg power lines.
The only area that has been raised that MAY be a concern is the pulsed nature of TDMA transmissions. This is not an issue with basestations as they transmit continuously. At the moment nothing has been proved, nor any mechanism shown for how this could work..
Here are a few links for further reading:
The World Health Organizations agenda for EMF research priorities [slashdot.org] The WHO International EMF Project list of research priorities needed in advance of the formal health risk assessments in 2003 and 2004. EMF research being supported by the GSM Association and the MMF [slashdot.org] The Association and the Mobile Manufacturers Forum are working to address EMF research priorities identified by the WHO. Report of the UK Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones In May 2000 [slashdot.org], an expert panel led by Professor Sir William Stewart released its report with extensive recommendations that need careful review. Study in Journal of American Medical Association - 20/12/2000 [slashdot.org] Dr Muscat et al conclude that "the use of handheld cellular telephones was unrelated to the risk of brain cancer in the current study." Study in New England Journal of Medicine - 19/12/2000 [slashdot.org] The authors conclude that "These data do not support the hypothesis that the recent use of hand-held cellular telephones causes brain tumors, but they are not sufficient to evaluate the risks among long-term, heavy users and for potentially long induction periods."
Real problem is past decisions haunting them (Score:3)
This spectrum is ideal for reaching indoors and as such is extremely valuable, however the push to get ATV was stronger than 3G wireless, and that's how it went.
The problem with the FCC is that they have to make decisions long before they know if the technology is viable - long before the industry has done market surveys, long before the technology has been invented. True, the FCC makes a lot of decisions based on deep pockets and power, but they really are trying to fulfill the "public interest, convenience and necessity" in their spectrum allocation.
Think back to the 70's. Computers were only in a few research institutions. You wanted to develop a numbering system and hierarchy that would be simultaneously sufficient and not wasteful. So Here is the birth of 32 bit addressing. 30 years later we realize it isn't so easy to switch over to 128bit while maintaining the 32 bit infrastrucure (I know I'm simplifying the problem a bit, but the idea is the same). These geniuses 30 years ago came up with a great system, but they had no idea what would happen in the next 30 years.
The FCC dug a hole for themselves in the past 5-15 years with spectrum allocation. Add to that the fact that FCC chairmen and commissioners last usually 4 years, and then a whole new breed come in and mess things up again. And add that the commissioners are lawyers, not engineers. And they need to be both.
It sucks that the FCC messed up with the whole ATV thing, and I'm sure whoever Bush appoints will take care of the problem for better or for worse, but they are trying their hardest not to make the same mistakes they have in the past.
-Alison
Not the only FCC delay. (Score:3)
What's that? You don't care about the DSL woes because your T1/T3 is doing just fine? Then maybe you should think about how the baby bells are keeping their prices high while other ISPs are offering $900 to $2500 per month for a T1. However, you still have to go through a baby bell to get the T1/T3 line.
I'll put it this way: if the baby bells can't give a soccer mom a decent Internet connection without fouling up somewhere, then why trust them with a high-speed, high-cost connection to your servers?
Re:NY Times link (Score:1)
--
Rest of the World (Score:1)
FoonDog
Re:Not the only FCC delay. (Score:1)
NY Times link (Score:2)
Try the story as seen (Score:1)
3G and UHF (Score:2)
It is my opinion that the FCC should auction ALL bandwidth in a "dark fiber" mode with no restrictions on modulation or protocol, as long as you stay within your band. For the more progressive minded, perhaps the FCC should only auction rental bandwidth, with a new auction every 1-5 years.
T1 Costs, Explained... (Score:1)
Err, there are other options including (but not limited to) MCI, Sprint, GlobalOne, GlobalCrossing, 360 degree Networks, etc.
What's that? You don't care about the DSL woes because your T1/T3 is doing just fine? Then maybe you should think about how the baby bells are keeping their prices high while other ISPs are offering $900 to $2500 per month for a T1. However, you still have to go through a baby bell to get the T1/T3 line.
To be honest this is the dumbest post I've ever read about telco pricing, let me tell you that if you take a medium to large city, deploy fiber (Let's say 6 30 Km rings) plus the necessary SONET equipment, ATM switches, IMA concentrators plus the outside copper plant and you've got yourself an investment around $60 million, now depreciate the equipment over 5 years and add the oretain and maintenance costs and you'll see why a T1 costs as much as it does, at least with Cable and DSL you can oversubscribe and recoup the investment faster which means a lower price.
Oh, BTW the 53K limit is in place so you can actually use the other wires (The ones next to yours in the neighborhood FXB) for other forms of communication without cross-interference.
AT&T taking the GSM route to 3G (Score:1)
Perhaps this is behind another interesting development, AT&T seem to be going down the GSM route to 3G according to this [totaltele.com] article in Communications Week (Registration required) Here is a summary for those who can't get there:
Got my own wireless network running! (Score:2)
Blow me away with Offtopic mod points, I don't care! I'm so happy I pulled this shit off (with a router and everything-- schweet!)
Re:Yet another reason Metricom will win in the end (Score:1)
http://www.ricochet.com/about_us/coverage_maps/
Puke! Their speeds are only 128kbps, which is the lowest of the 3G protocols.
Plus, the biggest advantage of 3G is that most carriers actually seem eager to embrace it, which means that we could actually have a unified wireless system.
Neat idea.... (Score:1)
www.nytimes.com/cnet/CNET_0_4_4347578_00.html
They would type in:
www.nytimesneedstogrowup.com/cnet/CNET_0_4_4347
and software would create a fake persona (the software is already there, check freshmeat), auto-register, and log the user into the page. This would be seamless for the user.
Not only would this skip the annoyance, it would fill up the Times database with imaginary people.
-Jeff
Re:I hope they avoid 2.4gig (Score:2)
Man, I'm a moderator right now, and I was sooo tempted to mod you down for being so far off base. However, I figured replying instead, to straighten things out, would be the more mature thing to do. So here goes:
When 2450MHz was selected in the 70's for microwave ovens, it was because it was a frequency that made water molecules vibrate really well. It's this vibration that causes them to heat up, which heats up the whole product. This is precisely why microwave ovens take a LONG time to heat items with very little water (puff pastry by itself, for example). It had nothing to do with interfering with things. True, early microwave ovens leaked quite a bit of RF, but nothing else transmitted at or immediately around 2450MHz, so it didn't matter whether or not they spewed RF because there was nothing else being broadcast at that frequency for them to interfere with.
For example, here's a choice snippet from the very link you quote:
Waves of that frequency penetrate well into foods of reasonable size so that the heating is relatively uniform throughout the foods. Since leakage from these ovens makes the radio spectrum near 2.45 GHz unusable for communications, the frequency was chosen in part because it would not interfere with existing communication systems.
2450MHz wasn't in use, and it worked well, so they chose it. Period.
End of lecture, class.
--
Re:NY Times link (Score:1)
Re:I hope they avoid 2.4gig (Score:1)
Re:I hope they avoid 2.4gig (Score:2)
I did a bit of research on the damage that RF can do to living tissue, and the only verifiable damaging effect is localized heating, and that is a factor of average power that hits the tissue. (I was working with a high peak power radar at the time, and very concerned.)
There are other reasons for 2.45 GHz beyond communications- the magnetron for it is a comfortable size, not too big to fit in a household device, not too small as to be hard to manufacture.
That frequency *was* in use, just not by many commercial devices- it is at the high end of L-Band, which was used in the 70's for radar (for sure) and satellite communication (I think).
Interesting Concept... (Score:2)
Blake
The partners link (Score:1)
Your Tax Dollar At Work (Score:2)
Your tax dollars at work
No registration? (Score:1)
They always seem to pop up, how do you guys get that anyway?
--
Re:Not the only FCC delay. (Score:1)
How can be best screw the average Americans? (Score:3)
FCC Bigwig B: That's a problem! I know, we can do what they did with the internet and create a 'Non-profit Coporation to do our dirty work for us!
Bigwig A: We'll call it 'Gigahurts Solutions'. What's better about having it privatized is that in disputes between corporations and individuals, the corporations will come out on top because they have more money to grease palms with!
Bigwig B: Speaking of which, how's new your 'complimentary' summer home in the keys?
Bigwig A: Almost completed! How about your kids' 'scholarships' to Yale and Harvard.
Bigwig B: Billy's grades aren't that great, but I can just make another 'donation' to take care of that!
I hope they avoid 2.4gig (Score:1)
Then at the same time I really hope they use something like CDMA as the air interface when they have spectrum...
Re:I hope they avoid 2.4gig (Score:2)
There are other frequencies used for heating things, they are in what is called ISM (Industrial, Scientific, Medical) bands. These bands are a bit more "anything goes" than other frequencies. The FCC rules are in this hefty tome [fcc.gov]. I'll leave it up to you to find the applicable parts. That's why Bluetooth and 802.11 work in the 2.4 GHz region. They have more free reign for what you can do, but you also have to accept interference without complaint.
Lameduck (Score:1)
He's a lameduck now so it doesn't matter what he says anymore. That is why they didn't meet the deadline.
Re:I hope they avoid 2.4gig (Score:1)
The warming effect is NOT a problem standing in the sun you will absorb many times the thermal energy given off by a mobile even transmitting at maximum power of 0.25 Watts