This is why we can't have nice wireless things in the USA ....
-
Duh! Again! Who said otherwise!?
He did:
They're unlicensed. Anybody can use them for any purpose, that's the point.
-
Anybody can use them for any purpose, that's the point.
Any purpose kinda seems to imply no regulation.
No it doesn't. It means exactly what it says.
The regulations don't apply to purpose, but to the frequencies and wattage you're allowed to use.
And look, another case where people are calling me stupid because they have a little voice in their brain that's stupid, and they're confusing the little brain-voice for stuff I've typed. Whee. I love when this happens.
(Apparently this is different with CB, which someone posted upstream has a regulation that it has to be voice transmission, but we're not talking about that, we're talking about the frequencies wifi uses. Since I know one of you pedantic dickweed motherfuckers would have pointed that out.)
It's also totally false because I can't run digital modes on CB/FRS/MURS, meaning I can't use them "for any purpose"
OH LOOK THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE.
THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKER.
I seriously doubt blakey's version of reality where someone comes in with a commercial product that fucks up wifi for everyone in the US
When did that happen?
-
When did that happen?
It hasn't happened. But you have said that if it does, tough shit, it is an unlicensed band.
-
Sure, the telcos can now monetize solutions to the problems they themselves create.
[/incoherent troll]
-
Yes. Are we restarting?
-
-
He isn't wrong. Blakey does not acknowledge the word 'wrong', only 'lie'.
-
OK, so blakey lied like the lying liar that he is. That works for me.
-
... because I refuse to believe a mostly-hypothetical system (whose creators have told us is not harmful) is harmful to the public.
Right.
-
if they go into the bands where amateur radio is the primary, they're gonna have some serious ARRL trouble if they start interfering with HAMs
Are there any such bands? I skimmed through https://transition.fcc.gov/oet/spectrum/table/fcctable.pdf, and didn't see any allocation that was shared between amateur and wireless services where amateur had primary status, although it's possible I missed something.
Also, ham is not an acronym (nor even a proper name); it's not capitalized.
-
... because I refuse to believe a mostly-hypothetical system (whose creators have told us is not harmful) is harmful to the public.
I never said that it was harmful. You need to get your shoulder aliens under control.
-
The regulations don't apply to purpose, but to the frequencies and wattage you're allowed to use.
False statement (in general; may not apply specifically to WiFi). As already pointed out, you cannot legally use unlicensed FRS radios for business purposes without a GMRS license, even though exactly the same radios are sold for both purposes. Let's say you and your wife have a home business. You can talk to her about picking up some groceries, but you can't (without a license) ask her whether you got an email from a customer. (In theory, anyway; as also pointed out, nobody pays any attention to those regulations. 99.93759264% of the people using them for business don't even know they're supposed to have a license for that.)
-
Oh, right. Because Corporations are TEH EVIL!!! and so anything a corporation does is by default scary and wrong and it doesn't matter if Corporations are responsible for pretty much ever increase in standard-of-living in the last 50 years.
It isn't anti-corporation to assume the worst of corporations that have proven themselves to be anti-consumer at best. I mean, we're talking about the company that failed to deploy the fiber they promised to the second largest city in the world.
-
False statement (in general; may not apply specifically to WiFi).
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WIFI FREQUENCIES AND I'M NOT READING THE REST OF YOUR POST
you retard
-
-
It still doesn't mean you can go about yelling "FIRE!" in crowded places.
Search for 'Trope Two: "Like shouting fire in a crowded theater"' The author is a former federal prosecutor and currently practicing lawyer.
Go to the FCC headquarters, and put in two massive antennas...
Given that you can't transmit much more than a watt, you'll either have to get on FCC property to do much -in which case your antenna will be confiscated- or you'll need a highly directional antenna -which won't wreak the havoc you seem to intend-.
Edit: Honestly, you'd get better results by using your directional antenna to spew forged DEAUTHENTICATE packets, but then you're not protesting FCC frequency management policies, but rather the insecure parts of WiFi's protocol design.
-
Are there any such bands? I skimmed through https://transition.fcc.gov/oet/spectrum/table/fcctable.pdf, and didn't see any allocation that was shared between amateur and wireless services where amateur had primary status, although it's possible I missed something.
Also, ham is not an acronym (nor even a proper name); it's not capitalized.
Hmm, might be thinking of another band. On mobile and I care way too little to look it up lol.
And yeah I know. Generally amateur radio operators all-caps it for whatever weird reason. That's generally the way I've seen it...
Edit: but I was curious and looked it up anyways. http://w5vwp.com/wifihams.shtml says we are primaries for part of the spectrum at least
-
we are primaries for part of the spectrum at least
Yes, there are definitely parths of the spectrum allocated to the Amateur Radio Service (ARS) as the primary, or even exclusive, user. However, I didn't see any shared with WiFi where ARS is primary. However, from the link you posted,
Hams are the PRIMARY users in the US on 2390mhz-2417mhz and secondary users elsewhere.
Ok, I missed that in the FCC doc I was looking at earlier. Also, very interesting article on using inexpensive WiFi gear for amateur radio.
-
Duh? Are we going into "I disagree with Blakeyrat, therefore he must be the dumbest motherfucker on Earth" mode here?
There is a difference between licensing and other regulations on channels, which you ignored as near as I can see. Your statements, as I understood them were: hey, the channels are unlicensed so they can do anything.
But these channels they are using were designated for low power short-range applications. All "unlicensed" means in this case is that you don't have to apply for a license to set up a wifi station in your house. It does not imply that anyone can do anything; the local TV station, for example, would be in trouble if they started broadcasting in the wifi channels.
Mainly, the restriction is signal strength. If I understood some of the stuff I read correctly (an assortment I won't bother to link) wifi channels are restricted to operation at a range of 32-64 meters (105-210 feet) and to exceed that would require an increase in signal strength which would violate the low-power regulations. Now think about cell towers...how much use is a cell tower signal that reaches 64 meters? (On some towers the signal wouldn't reach the ground, much less your car.)
So AT&T/Verizon are either planning to jump the signal strength restrictions (which probably means they will interfere with my wifi) or, as was mentioned above, what this is really about is using their private modem technology to broadcast from modems in homes
I don't have an AT&T modem, but suppose I did: apparently the idea is that anyone with a cell phone in my vicinity could just hook up to my wifi and use it. My wifi, for which I'm paying $$bucks$$ for 6 MB/sec, which is now going to be shared by every yahoo that walks by talking on a cell phone.
So shall I feel good about this?
(I thought disagreeing with @blakeyrat was mandatory.)
-
There is a difference between licensing and other regulations on channels, which you ignored as near as I can see.
No I didn't. I didn't explicitly point it out, because I assumed people on this forum weren't FLAMING IDIOTS.
I was wrong.
-
I assumed people on this forum weren't FLAMING IDIOTS.
Your posting history would seem to contradict this. You have called many people on this forum flaming idiots (or worse) many times in the past. Therefore, it is logically inconsistent for you make this assumption when you, yourself, have repeatedly declared them to be.
-
Also, very interesting article on using inexpensive WiFi gear for amateur radio
Yeah, it's a cool idea. I've been looking into it a bit as something that puts to use both my IT geek and radio geek sides.
-
No I didn't. I didn't explicitly point it out, because I assumed people on this forum weren't FLAMING IDIOTS.
I was wrong.
You literally used the wrong term. Are we being pedantic? Maybe. You still used the wrong term. If I said "All websites on the internet are run on Linux", then you corrected me and pointed out that it's not true, I can't come back and say " Well obviously all of them aren't, I just meant most". That's what you're doing.
People can do anything* they want on the ISM band frequencies because they are ISM band. NOT because they're unlicensed. Got it?
-
I've been looking into it a bit as something that puts to use both my IT geek and radio geek sides.
Bookmarked for more thorough reading later. My radio geek side hasn't gotten a chance to come out and play for years. Last time I tried to let it out, I discovered all the NiCd batteries for my >20-year-old 2m/440 handheld had gone south and wouldn't hold a charge any more. Put it away again, and rarely think about it. I've kept my license current, but haven't done anything with it.
-
I fortunately get to play radio geek pretty often. I do a lot of VHF digital (APCO P25) and got myself a relatively cheap (~$200) old(ish) commercial radio to do it (EF Johnson 5100 to be specific). Bonus points because they can operate (and are the primary VHF radio used by) the semi-govenmental agency that has frequencies just above and below the ham VHF bands which I actively participate in as well...
-
2m/440
I choose to interpret this as "2 meters of range, 440 Hz operating frequency".
Did your gear look something like that?
-
I choose to interpret this
Disregarding your presumably intentional misinterpretation for humorous intent, here's a serious response:
2 meters of range, 440 Hz operating frequency
Close but not quite. Dual-band radio, operating in the 144 – 148MHz (commonly called the 2 meter band) and 440 – 450MHz (sometimes referred to as the 70cm band) ranges.
-
I don't have an AT&T modem, but suppose I did: apparently the idea is that anyone with a cell phone in my vicinity could just hook up to my wifi and use it. My wifi, for which I'm paying $$bucks$$ for 6 MB/sec, which is now going to be shared by every yahoo that walks by talking on a cell phone.
That depends. If they're using a separate SSID and that gets routed so that you don't get charged for the traffic generated, do you really care that your ISP's device is doing this extra work?
-
That depends.
In Hong Kong, once upon a time there were 4G plan with unlimited network access. When significant number of people applied for it and use it for high data traffic usage such as watching Youtube, everyone noticed significant reduction in overall connection stability. In the end, all these ISPs single-sidedly added constraint that if your current month network usage is above 5GB, your connection speed will be reduced to 20-30KB (depends on which ISP you're on), and later they just cut all contract renewal option on unlimited plans and force you to either choose from limited plan or don't renew.
So yes, the "other traffics" can have effect on you.
-
@CoyneTheDup said:
I don't have an AT&T modem, but suppose I did: apparently the idea is that anyone with a cell phone in my vicinity could just hook up to my wifi and use it. My wifi, for which I'm paying $$bucks$$ for 6 MB/sec, which is now going to be shared by every yahoo that walks by talking on a cell phone.
That depends. If they're using a separate SSID and that gets routed so that you don't get charged for the traffic generated, do you really care that your ISP's device is doing this extra work?
Depends on how much that electricity costs; probably negligible, but it's still not zero. Should you be compensated for that cost?
-
So AT&T/Verizon are either planning to jump the signal strength restrictions (which probably means they will interfere with my wifi) or, as was mentioned above, what this is really about is using their private modem technology to broadcast from modems in homes
If you RTFA (or posts from people who did) they say that this stuff would be used inside buildings. Which is also apparently where most mobile data is consumed.
-
Hi troll. For grsecurity, for instance, it is in the license. You're ignant.
-
Hi troll. For grsecurity, for instance, it is in the license. You're ignant.
Hi.
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
I am ignant.
-
That depends. If they're using a separate SSID and that gets routed so that you don't get charged for the traffic generated, do you really care that your ISP's device is doing this extra work?
It's not the SSID that concerns me.
I'm paying my ISP for 6 mbps, and given their normal proclivities ("We proudly offer up to 6 mbps!") I'm probably getting as little as 3 or 4% of that most of the time. Call it 10%, 600 kbps,
And now I'm going to have other people hooking their 14.4 mbps phones to my modem and sucking my bandwidth? Great, their phone's performance will suck, but so will my internet connection--probably at half the already sucky rate. A cellphone would hurt my performance even if I was getting the full 6 mbps, which I'm probably not.
And I had to pay for that. I was probably on a "1.5 mbps connection" and upgraded to 6, which cost me another $20 a month and now the bystander's cell is going to knock me back down into the basement again.
At least that's what I'm thinking AT&T will do to the people using its modems.
If you RTFA (or posts from people who did) they say that this stuff would be used inside buildings. Which is also apparently where most mobile data is consumed.
See above. Where did you think the bandwidth for those cells was going to come from?
-
I'm paying my ISP for 6 mbps, and given their normal proclivities ("We proudly offer up to 6 mbps!") I'm probably getting as little as 3 or 4% of that most of the time. Call it 10%, 600 kbps,
And now I'm going to have other people hooking their 14.4 mbps phones to my modem and sucking my bandwidth? Great, their phone's performance will suck, but so will my internet connection--probably at half the already sucky rate. A cellphone would hurt my performance even if I was getting the full 6 mbps, which I'm probably not.
And I had to pay for that. I was probably on a "1.5 mbps connection" and upgraded to 6, which cost me another $20 a month and now the bystander's cell is going to knock me back down into the basement again.
At least that's what I'm thinking AT&T will do to the people using its modems.
So your "up to" bandwidth "problem" is more likely an issue with the intervening nodes or peering location congestion ....
@boomzilla said:
If you RTFA (or posts from people who did) they say that this stuff would be used inside buildings. Which is also apparently where most mobile data is consumed.
See above. Where did you think the bandwidth for those cells was going to come from?
Well, for FTTP (and even DOCSIS 3), you have far more bandwidth available to you than they allow you to use - it's an artificial limit. The OTT bandwidth isn't taken out of your allotment.
There are, possibly, wireless congestion issues, but there's no backhaul problem with the scheme.
-
Where did you think the bandwidth for those cells was going to come from?
Over the air or the tubes? There's no indication that they plan to shanghai your (or anyone else's) connection. As for over the air, presumably the owners of the buildings either don't have wifi right now or they'll have to figure out how to accommodate both. I'm assuming that the mobile guys can't just come in and set this stuff up wherever. But I guess we'll see.
I don't think they care at all about home stuff, since you're probably already using your own wifi when you're around it. The concern here is when you're out at some place that you'd normally use whatever mobile data network you'd normally use. But now you'd have more opportunity to use wifi instead in those places.
None of that implies to me anything about ignoring / changing signal strength or modems in homes.
-
I don't think they care at all about home stuff, since you're probably already using your own wifi when you're around it. The concern here is when you're out at some place that you'd normally use whatever mobile data network you'd normally use. But now you'd have more opportunity to use wifi instead in those places.
I'd disagree there, if they could somehow get to charge against your data cap while you use "their" Wi-Fi in your home, they would LOVE that.
Note: I'm not sure how or why that would work, but I'm sure somebody at Verizon and AT&T are trying to come up with a scheme for it.
-
On DOCSIS you can have an extra connection that's logically separate from your own, which I assume is true for FTTP too.
-
I'd disagree there, if they could somehow get to charge against your data cap while you use "their" Wi-Fi in your home, they would LOVE that.
I wouldn't be shocked to learn that, but there's no evidence for that in the articles under discussion.
-
On DOCSIS you can have an extra connection that's logically separate from your own, which I assume is true for FTTP too.
Did I not say that? If I didn't I meant to.
-
@rad131304 said:
I'd disagree there, if they could somehow get to charge against your data cap while you use "their" Wi-Fi in your home, they would LOVE that.
I wouldn't be shocked to learn that, but there's no evidence for that in the articles under discussion.
I agree; no evidence they're actually pursuing either - even if it's not against your cap, it still de-congests their cellular bandwidth.
-
Yeah, guess so, now I've reread it.
Our national cable Telco is implementing this shortly. Extra logical connection to the router which is served from its own wireless SSID as a public WiFi network for customers. Anyone who stays opted in on for their own router gets to use the network wherever it's available from someone else's.
-
Yeah, guess so, now I've reread it.
My above reply wasn't meant to be snarky, BTW. It was an "oh crap did I not say what I thought I said" moment.
Our national cable Telco is implementing this shortly. Extra logical connection to the router which is served from its own wireless SSID as a public WiFi network for customers. Anyone who stays opted in on for their own router gets to use the network wherever it's available from someone else's.
Sounds similar to what Comcast does in my area, though thankfully I don't have one of their terrible routers so I don't have to participate.
-
Note: I'm not sure how or why that would work, but I'm sure somebody at Verizon and AT&T are trying to come up with a scheme for it.
That'd be the sort of thing most likely to attract lawsuits though. The telcos might be evil incarnate, but they'll want to avoid getting too much tangled up with the courts. Whether or not they'd win, it'd still be expensive and uncertain.
I'm paying my ISP for 6 mbps
/me notes that a 154Mbps connection makes you a lot less bothered about this sort of thing.
-
I'm assuming that the mobile guys can't just come in and set this stuff up wherever.
If the telco's local wifi router supports remote management, they absolutely can do just that. Which is one reason why I have my own router plugged in after that. (It's also higher power than the telco's router.)
-
Sounds similar to what Comcast does in my area, though thankfully I don't have one of their terrible routers so I don't have to participate.
The Virgin Media routers work well enough, certainly don't have problems with mine and the idea of having access elsewhere to WiFi in even more places is cool too.
-
/me notes that a 154Mbps connection makes you a lot less bothered about this sort of thing.
I keep thinking about upgrading, but I don't need it so not sure if I can be arsed paying the extra £9.50/month to upgrade from 100Mbps.
-
I keep thinking about upgrading, but I don't need it so not sure if I can be arsed paying the extra £9.50/month to upgrade from 100Mbps.
I'm not entirely sure it is worth it, but it's still nice.
-
@boomzilla said:
I'm assuming that the mobile guys can't just come in and set this stuff up wherever.
If the telco's local wifi router supports remote management, they absolutely can do just that. Which is one reason why I have my own router plugged in after that. (It's also higher power than the telco's router.)
Yeah, but why would they care? OK, so they have an access point somewhere in the bowels of the building. Now what? Most people in the building probably won't be able to get to that. So they'll want to put these things around where they're useful, which would require the cooperation of the owners / tenants.
-
Yeah, but why would they care?
It's for the domestic case, where it's about providing a better telephone service than the cell mast, while simultaneously freeing up more bandwidth for the people a little bit further away who can only get cell signal. The placement might not be perfect, but for that particular building it's going to be better than the cell mast which might be quite a way away.
Getting support into commercial/industrial environments will be done differently.
