Pentagon and Wi-Fi Deal Reached 120
byteCoder writes "CNet reports that the US Military and the Wi-Fi manufacturers have struck an agreement on reducing the interference on military radars by Wi-Fi equipment. Basically, future wireless equipment will detect the presence of military radar and not transmit over the top of it. Additionally, as part of the compromise, defense officials will endorse the doubling of the number of allowed wireless frequencies--thus opening more spectrum to wireless users (as long as the FCC and Congress agree)."
Win-Win (Score:3, Insightful)
win? bah, don't dance with the Devil (Score:2)
How long before Corporation A decides to get into a price war with Corp B, and sees the military radar detection as a cost savings removal?
Also, how many customers will give a rats ass about some military Radar? They will demand full power.
all in all this is utter nonsense. WiFi uses only the public bands which are already used by cordless telephones and remote control cars, etc. Is their a deal with the cordless phone companies as well???
Im baffled at what this is really about.
Re:win? bah, don't dance with the Devil (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, how many customers will give a rats ass about some military Radar? They will demand full power.
Did you even read the article?
This is an FCC bandwidth allotment issue, in the 5ghz range. Compliance with this agreement will be required in any device intended for the market. If Corporation A wants to have it's license to manufacture devices in that spectrum yanked, hey, more power to them.
Re:win? bah, don't dance with the Devil (Score:1)
I think a quicker and more effective solution will be to have a couple companies of Marines re-negotiate with the manufacturer until it sees the errors of its ways. The Marine engineers are especially good at "removing" obstacles.
Re:win? bah, don't dance with the Devil (Score:2)
"Sir, yes, sir!"
Gonna need some lizards and a Ronald Reagan stand-up.
Re:win? bah, don't dance with the Devil (Score:2)
Yes you must meet FCC regulations, but This does not affect existing equipment AFAIK which makes the article just plain meaningless. Again I reiterate their is no way wi-fi can be singled out, their are MANY more cordless telephones in 2GHz range than their are wi-fi units, and their will be in 5GHz as well...
Re:win? bah, don't dance with the Devil (Score:2)
Cooperation (Score:3, Funny)
Just what I've always wanted (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Just what I've always wanted (Score:2)
With detectors comes jammers... ahhh, nevermind, maybe I shouldn't F with the military radar... Just the police radar.
Ya gotta love fuzzbusters though!
Re:Just what I've always wanted (Score:5, Interesting)
Similarly, just by mimicking the signal of the military radar you could launch a Denial of Service attack against anyone trying to use Wi-Fi.
It would seem this compromise results in a serious trade-off of National security versus the security of the users' own systems. It could end up being a nasty tool for industrial sabotage if you could shut down networking at competitor's facility from a van parked outside. As a result, it could limit the acceptance of Wi-Fi as a replaced for wired LANs - and keep it as a mobile only technology.
(I know a lot of supposition went into that, but heck, I'm only posting to SlashDot).
Re:Just what I've always wanted (Score:2, Interesting)
You could put someone out of business in a hard way with a few dozen DOS attacks like this.
Re:Just what I've always wanted (Score:1)
I don't know the specifics of the installation, but I suspect it is mobile units carried around by warehouse workers.
Not a set of fixed terminals using wireless LAN access instead of wired LAN access.
In this situation, there very well could not be a realistically feasible wired alternative.
Wireless data is more useful that just a substitute for someone who doesn't want to plug in their laptop. It enables use scenarios that aren't available to a wired infrastructure.
Re:Just what I've always wanted (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just what I've always wanted (Score:2)
The only problem with that is that it's already incredibly easy to jam WiFi as it is. Aim your directional jammer at your competition's access points and they go deaf. This development would just tell WiFi equipment to shut-up when it detects military interference rather than uselessly jabber away.
Re:Just what I've always wanted (Score:2)
As opposed to driving up a van jamming the traditional mobile frequencies...?
I don't see why jamming the shared frequencies should have any better or worse consequences than jamming the traditional ones. Possibly better, if the system adapts well around jammed frequencies. Possibly worse, if it overreacts and turns off a broad spectrum because of a small jam presence.
Tor
Oh my! (Score:2)
Messing with military radar by mimicking the signal has led to serious user harm [navy.mil]. Use with caution.
Re:Just what I've always wanted (Score:2, Funny)
whole new meaning to wardriving? (Score:4, Funny)
Note to tank drivers: If you have a circle'd W chalked on your tank you've been painted.
INCOMEING....
Mixed results? (Score:1)
Re:Mixed results? (Score:5, Insightful)
WHAT? Do you live in a cave?
TONS of consumer technology has its roots in military-developed technology. You wouldn't be able to waste your time on
Re:Mixed results? (Score:2, Interesting)
Microwave ovens (radar research)
the worlds first electronic computer (for calculating artillery angles and trajectories)
the Internet (linking not only colleges and campuses, but military bases. The old original internet can still withstand a nuclear strike)
Pennicilin (an attempt to keep soldiers alive longer after being wounded, discovered via accident during this process)
Rocketry (advanced greatly by the Germans in WWII)
Most advances in radio technology and aeronautics were out of necessity during wars
What about those lights? (Score:1)
Who wins? (Score:5, Interesting)
Does this "agreement" allow anyone who wants to suppress the use of WiFi to turn on a device that simulates 'military radar"?
Just wondering.
.
Re:Who wins? (Score:2)
Re:Who wins? (Score:1)
Who wins? Not me, apparently. (Score:3, Funny)
Since the cops have a speed trap right behind my house (about 30 feet from my kitchen wall), it looks like I'm going to have to cover my entire house with a Faraday cage.
Re:Who wins? Not me, apparently. (Score:3, Interesting)
You've got that all wrong; the economical thing is to encase the speed trap instead, since it'll be smaller ;-)
(In fact, as others have pointed out, police use much higher frequencies - all 10GHz or higher - which won't affect any WiFi type kit. It's just the older military radars - as in aircraft - which use 5GHz, and would conflict with 802.11a's use unless you're careful.)
Re:Who wins? Not me, apparently. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Who wins? (Score:1)
If only there were such an "agreement" regarding the various cell phone frequencies; the roads would be safer and the movie theaters more quiet.
Frequency for Radar (Score:5, Informative)
Information [hypertextbook.com] on police radar guns: "The granddaddy of systems is X band radar... X band operates on the narrow channel from 10.500 to 10.550 gigahertz (GHz)... K band appeared in the seventies and quickly became popular in its deadliest form: a hand held gun featuring an instant on switch. K band operates on a higher-frequency channel from 24.050 to 24.250 GHz... In 1989, photo radar appeared on the scene, and it was bad news for motorists--it operated on a frequency that was undetectable by existing radar detectors. The FCC set up a channel for photo-radar from 34.200 to 34.400 GHz, which lies within the wide Ka band... Which brings us to the Stalker, the latest wrinkle in hand-held radar guns. It operates on the Ka band anywhere from 34.200 to 35.200 GHz."
Here is another informative article [dailywireless.org] on how the Wi-Fi is colliding with the millitary radar, down at 5 GHz side of the spectrum, specifically 5.150-5.350 GHz.
Thus, police radar should never affect Wi-Fi, and vice versa.
Re:Who wins? (Score:2, Insightful)
Somebody will argue that this still opens the door to purposely jamming signals, which is true, but if you're willing to break the law there are already a lot of ways to do it.
Re:Who wins? (Score:3, Informative)
BTW: I just know a little about this. I would do a search on google for -- ISM licence 802.11b "part15" -- and see what you get
IKICS- IKnowICan'tSpell.
Re:Who wins? (Score:1)
Re:Who wins? (Score:2)
What about military use? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm... (Score:4, Funny)
hmmm.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:hmmm.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I'm estatic over the prospect of expanding the total number of completely independent channels from three to five or six.
Re:hmmm.... (Score:2)
In other news, President Bush just deployed 500 linksys wireless access points for a "Missle Defense Shield". The project was estimated to cost $20 Billion.
Re:hmmm.... (Score:4, Informative)
Nope, the ability and technology to detect radar has been around for along time, decades. The most comon example of this technology in found military aircraft where it is used to determine whether or not the aircraft is being tracked by radar. Most governments have this capability but the biggest tactical factor just depends on the level of their technology.
For example Iraqi ground mobile anti-aircraft missiles facilities are usually not able to aquire radar target on a U.S. F-15 and shoot it down before the U.S. F-15 can detect the source of the radar transmission and blow it up. This is not always the case as the Iraqi's have been desperately trying to aquire new technologies which sometimes allows them to get off a lucky shot. It all depends on the level of their technology.
Re:hmmm.... (Score:2)
Get yourself a spectrum analyzer instead.
If you have access to the required tools, it has always been easy to discover RF transmission. Many of these tools are now becoming consumer devices. When software radio matures, a simple software upgrade would suffice to discover and recognize radar and other RF transmissions.
What I'm more worried about is that US military radar evidently is so sensitive and fragile that even a low powered signal in the 5GHz range can knock it out - I honestly thought their stuff was designed to handle military grade ECM but it sounds like they can't even handle consumer grade wifi equipment.
Re:hmmm.... (Score:2)
It's all a question of power. In friendly territory (ie, in the middle of a US city) they probably don't want to use too much power, just for the sake of avoiding complaints; but they'll still want to have functioning radar for navigational purposes. In a hostile environment, they can increase the power without anyone complaining.
Re:hmmm.... (Score:2)
Good point.
Re:hmmm.... (Score:2)
Detecting military, or any other radar is pretty damn easy. Radar is like a torch in a dark forest, the user uses the relected waves to see things. However, someone at the other end of the forest will be able to see the wave source long before the user detects them with it. People have been doing this for quite some time now.
Missles like the HARM use radar emissions to target in on the objective, much like I described with the torch. Ideal for taking our SAM stations.
When it comes to front line fighting, the military tries to limit emissions on their equipment. So much so, most modern planes don't use their radar most of the time. This is where AWACs comes in; the massive radar dome on top of that beast can pick up things from long away, better than any set on a fighter. The data from the radar is shared with the fighters, who get the benefit without any emissions of their own. The goal of Stealth technology is to have less than zero emissions, that is, don't give any of your own out, and absorb and redirect any radar that is pointed at you.
What is more worrying to me is the ability for the consumer equipment to automatically shut down if there is a military user on the same band. How easy can you make a DOS attack?
And what I find very enticing is to use a similar detection system, this time watching for normal emissions from police vehicles. Especially the traffic ones! I'm not talking about looking out for speed detection stuff, by that point it's too late. There must be something that their radio/GPS or any of the other new cool toys they have that is out there, waiting to be detected! ;-)
Lawrence Lessig's Position (Score:5, Interesting)
Should be interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps it's time to grab an 802.11g access point before they are all military radar friendly. Or will the long term result be a ban on non-friendly access points?
I suppose time will tell. It has a habit of doing that.
Re:Should be interesting (Score:1)
Now if I could just get it to stop interferring with my 2.4 Ghz phone....
2.4 GHz Versus 5 GHz (Score:1)
802.11a, at 5 GHz, is limited in coverage range. Throughput drops off sharply at the edge as well.
The resolution calls for almost doubling the 5 GHz bandwidth, while leaving 2.4 GHz the same. There is also no radio or antenna compatability between 2.4 and 5 GHz.
I can see this taking our beloved "Wi-Fi Metropolitan Area Networks" and turning them into Wi-Fi lans. Something the government would probably like.
Consarnd it!
Re:Uh-huh.. (Score:1)
Detecting Radar (Score:1)
help (Score:2, Funny)
Re:help (Score:2)
Thank you for your cooperation.
NSA
sounds great (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:sounds great (Score:1)
True, but that's not part of the agreement.
The bill proposes opening up an additional 255MHz of contiguous spectrum in the 5GHz band. A 300MHz slice of the 5GHz band is being used for wireless networking, while only 83MHz of spectrum is being used in the 2.4GHz band.
Even if the Bill is passed, 802.11a and 802.11g (which are in the 2.4GHz band) will still only have 3 usable channels. 802.11a (which in in the 5 GHz band) will almost double in number of channels.
FCC, Congress and the Commerce Department. (Score:3)
Upcoming .. (Score:5, Interesting)
Which electronic magazine (or Phrack ?) will be the first to publish "Build your own WiFi scrambler/silencer for under 20 bucks" article.
So basically... (Score:3)
Sweet. For them anyway....
Re:So basically... (Score:2)
The military already has problems with cellphones (Score:2)
Radar Jamming for $99 (Score:1)
Doesn't anybody find this totally rediculous? A low powered device that barely goes through a brick wall, that supposedly interferes with military radar that's designed to deal with jamming in the megawatt range. So are we going to ask our enemys to please not use WiFi equipment? Does that mean civilian radar works better?
Or is this Bush doing the telcoms a favor? Who wants all that competition anyway?
Yes I know, totally paranoid. But WiFi interferring with military radar???
Re:Radar Jamming for $99 (Score:2, Interesting)
What the military are concerned with is millions of such devices in the area of a radar raising the noise floor. It's a collective effect, rather than a jammer. To build an effective jammer, the jamming signals would need to be coming from all directions simultaneously.
This is a safety issue not a security one (Score:1)
Of course our enemies are going to do their best to cause harm to military aircraft. I don't mind giving up a few bands on the spectrum to help insure there isn't an accident (figher plane crashing into my house and the like.
Re:This is a safety issue not a security one (Score:1)
Trying to stop the WiFi bandwagon might help us bomb Utah, but it won't work anywhere else. So why try? Well, the way I see it, there are three possibilities:
1) It really is a problem. In that case, the genius who provided the enemy with a recipe for jamming U.S. military radar should be court-martialed and sent away for good. And one can only hope that a solution will be found soon.
2) Some guy at the Dept. of Defense Office of Red Tape and Job Security read a report about some background noise coming from WiFi equipment, and in light of the general hysteria about anything security, decided to take full advantage. In that case, somebody should clue him (yes a him, women aren't that stupid, are they?) in on the fact that it's making the U.S. military look stupid, and that is not good when you want to frighten people in other countries.
3) It's a shameless attempt to knock down the pesky WiFi competition, and the Phone Company did it--or rather the politicians on their payroll.
Any other options? Maybe this should be
This might be a plus (Score:3, Interesting)
You need to send out a pulse of radio waves to capture the echo off of metal objects. If there are enough transmitters out there you might not need to send a pulse. You might be able to read the echo off of objects using the thousands of transmitters around it. You'd be able to use radar but keep your emissions to zero!
Re:This might be a plus (Score:2)
Yes, because at no point in the Iraqi desert or the mountains of Afghanistan are you more than a few hundred feet from a wireless access point.
Investigate Best Buy! (Score:4, Funny)
Investigate Best Buy! It's kind of pathetic when all Saddam and the rest of the United States' enemies need to do is pop down to Best Buy and buy a wireless hub to protect themselves from the military might of world's largest army.
All the Iraqi airforce needs to do now is jetison wireless hubs and GeForce FX cards and they'll be immune to both radar and heat-seeking missiles.
What's next? CAT-5 cable found to defeat stealth technology?
Re:Investigate Best Buy! (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps the Slashback story could read: 'US Military agree to technology restriction which makes their enemies impossible to defeat. Luckily, some guy on Slashdot notices!'
hmph.
Re:Investigate Best Buy! (Score:1)
That would, probably, be China's...
At what threshold? (Score:2, Interesting)
Military Radars Don't Cover Most of the Earth (Score:2)
The FAA is responsible for air coverage within the U.S., they assume aircraft want to be tracked. The limitations associated with this were apparent on 9/11. The FAA lost track of the fourth hijacked aircraft because it descended below radar coverage.
For those who say Saddam can buy a radar detector at Best Buy, this is no big deal. Radar is radio waves, all you need to build is a radio to detect radar. This technology is about a hundred years old. Furthermore, Saddam can buy radar warning detectors on the open market. He can also buy radar jammers. Many countries build and sell them. See for example the recent stories about GPS jammers that he supposedly has.
The real problem is what to do with radar warning receivers and jammers. Say you detect a radar. If you jam it, the enemy knows he has been detected and can take evasive action. If you do nothing, you leave yourself vulnerable to attack. There are even more complications with missiles such as HARM that can home on radar and jammer emissions. Do you leave the radar on and let a missile guide right to you? If you turn it off, you're blind.
The article says none of that! (Score:5, Informative)
All of the above is supposition on the submitter's part, and NONE of it is referenced in teh article. First of all, the article says >
Nothing about 'detecting' military radar, and nothing about shutting down transmission when it does. Next up we have Pentagon endorsement of the Boxer/Allen Broaband Jumpstart Act which will open up an add'l 255MHz in the 5GHz band. Well, the article doesn't say anything about that either - all we've got is this quote:
Which is from One of the bill's sponsors (Boxer) - not the DOD!
Oh, and just in case you were wondering - None of this applies to existing 2.4GHz wireless gear...
Re:The article says none of that! (Score:2, Informative)
Here's the deal - there has been a long running dispute between the military and industry on this issue. At issue for some time has not been whether Wi-Fi should switch channel on detecting a radar, but what the detection threshold is. Bear in mind that the pulses you're looking for are extremely weak at the periphery of range of the radar. The DoD originally wanted WLANs to vacate the channel on detecting a radar-like signal at a level of -67dBm or greater (that's pretty weak, and there was a major issue of false detection).
The new proposal requires a detection threshold of -62dBm for WLANs transmitting less than 200mW, or -64dBm for WLANs transmitting between 200mW and 1W. In return for industry support at these levels, the DoD is prepared to supporting freeing up some extra 5GHz spectrum to give WLANs more channels.
And no, none of this applies to 2.4GHz. That's beacause there are no radars there, and there's no extra spectrum in the vicinity that isn't already spoken for.
Re:The article says none of that! (Score:1)
5GHz Wi-Fi "backing off" from military radar (Score:3)
What the hell for? Wouldn't radar signals squelch the hell out of any wi-fi carrier around? Even if wi-fi did manage to interfere with military radar, how can you confuse a weak, intermittent signal (wi-fi is spread-spectrum, remember) with a radar return?
Of course, as for the newly-created vulnerability of wireless access points to radar noise...I'm sure that homeland security (and other unsavory types) would *never* use this feature irresponsibly....say, in order to disrupt a potential terrorist's communications.
I'm equally sure that no enterprising young hacker out there with some basic RF skills would *ever* produce a wi-fi jamming device that mimicked the signature of military radar, but with much less amplification.
My new favorite quote!! (Score:1)
Translation: (Score:1)
Let's make a deal: I'll recommend that you be allowed to use { that spectrum | those machines } as long as you { agree to abandon it | give me the root password } whenever I demand it. Sounds like a good deal to you?
While it may seem like a good way to get more spectrum for "unlicensed" (i.e.: first come, first served) uses, what this really amounts to is trading the limited "level-playing-field" spectrum for a bit more spectrum which can be shut down by military (or other governmental) interests at any time.
So before you jump on the "this is great" bandwagon, think carefully; what will be the checks and balances to prevent a shutdown by the military for non-military reasons? Will access to the this spectrum be considered a guaranteed right (ala Free Speech) of a privlege granted at the pleasure of whatever administration happens to be in power at the moment?
Actually... (Score:1)
And mobile phones? (Score:1)
So does this mean that future phones and ovens will be designed to stop working when they receive a military radar signal, or is it the case of them singling out wi-fi for some strange reason?
Re:And mobile phones? (Score:1)
802.11g is/will be wi-fi, but 802.11a is just 802.11a.
Re:the military serves me; I do not serve the mil (Score:1)
If more citizens took your attitude, we'd have a country full of whining, bumbling idiots, like other countries the United States deals with do. However, we have risen above that, and that's what makes us America.
In other news (Score:2)
How is releasing technical details that make this possible a good idea?
Military Interference (Score:1)
The DoD needs to shutup about this and fix it's stuff so that is can stand the heat of the kitchen and be battle ready transparent to us all.