WiFi, Light Bulbs, And The FCC 247
JFMulder writes "According to Cringely, 802.11 WiFi wireless networking is going to get in lot of troubles when Fushion Lightning starts marketting low-power light blubs which causes interferences with Wifi signals. Read about it at I, Cringely. Supposedly the new kind of light bulb is a real electricity saver and can wreck havoc to wireless networks in a half a mile radius. So what would you prefer? Wireless networks or low cost light bulbs all around the country to save more and more on electricity?" Update: 06/13 03:52 GMT by M : Cringely confused the FHSS-or-DSSS 802.11 standard with the DSSS-only 802.11b standard, but the general warning about the potential for interference is certainly troubling.
Broadband access is far more important (Score:2, Insightful)
Uncontrolled frequencies are doomed anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe It's Just Me... (Score:3, Insightful)
Low cost lighting benefits everyone, rather than the relative few who can and will access wireless networks. I can see the power in wireless, but since most people will never take advantage of this, and you can be environment-friendly in the process, I say go for efficient lighting. As Cringley briefly mentions and then forgets for the rest of the article, it will decrease energy usage and reliance on oil, which will really benefit everyone.
This whole "war on terror" would not likely be happening without our (the US's) incredible appetite for oil. Anything we can do to curb this will be beneficial, and that to me is far more important than being able to get sports scores and news headlines on my Visor.
Yes, WE COVERED THIS WEEKS AGO (Score:4, Insightful)
I want to be able to moderate stories down. And I want karma values for the bozos editing this stuff.
Isn't it simple? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe it's just me, but this is a no brainer. Sure, I'm writing this from the shitter thanks to my 802.11b network. Sure, I like using my laptop anywhere near my apartment. But if these lights are the real deal--prime time or not--I'll gladly move to an 802.11a network if/when they're widely used. Light bulbs waste a tremendous amount of energy nationwide, and if these bulbs can help reduce that, then great! We can only abuse the earth so long. We can wait until after we drop a deuce to check email, or can upgrade to 802.11a if we really can't.
Of course, widespread adoption of the new lights is a huge concern. Look at how energy efficient compact flourecent lights are, and how relatively few are actually used.
Re:Not a problem, an opportunity! (Score:4, Insightful)
They will just light up more bulbs. (Score:1, Insightful)
Just get us fusion power.
Savings? (Score:1, Insightful)
Who believes we'll save on electricity? OK, I might be a cynic, but experience tells me that if everybody started using low-power light bulbs, the power companies would just hike the price per kW-hour.
5 Years to go... (Score:2, Insightful)
Now they not only tell us what vaporware is coming, but what other vaporware might impact it!
Someone call the Police and file a WGAS Report.
PS. If there was even a choice to be made it would be for the Lights. Reduction in power consumption is good for everyone but Oil companies and Opec.
What nonsense. (Score:5, Insightful)
These lights are governed by the same standards as WiFi networks with regard to field strength. Namely, FCC Part 15.
These light fixtures would likely be considered "incidental radiators" by FCC Part 15.
An incidental radiator must use "good engineering" practices and must not cause harmful interference to radio services.
It seems to me that wiping out a half mile of wireless networks is harmful.
Just for sake of argument, let's bump these lights up a notch to "unintentional radiators," which means they generate radio energy internally for whatever use but do not by design radiate it into space. In this category, they are limited to 500 microvolts per meter of radiated field strength as measured at 3 meters distance.
This is exactly the same field strength limitation placed on intentional radiators in the 2.4 GHz band.
This means that these lights may only produce as much radio energy as a WiFi base station/client card with a unity gain antenna.
The FCC has also classically ruled against unintentional radiators which cause interference with intentional radiators due to their excessive field strength, regardless of whether they meet the requirements of Part 15 or not.
The FCC normally requests that unintentional radiator manufacturers show good faith by being far below the legal limits permitted in Part 15.
I'm not even going to go into the fact that WiFi is a spread-spectrum system and is very immune to traditional forms of interference. Unless these are spread-spectrum, intentionally radiating low power lights, I don't think we've got much to worry about.
Also, whomever thinks the FCC just doesn't care what goes on in the unlicensed portions of the spectrum is wrong. They certainly don't chase down every Part 15 violation, but they do randomly sample finished products from a variety of manufacturers to determine their compliance.
The manufacturer gets into trouble if these things don't meet Part 15 requirements, so these lights will simply never get off the ground if they interfere as much as it has been said they do.
Better question... (Score:3, Insightful)
What would you prefer? The WB Network or WiFi+Lightbulbs?
Why are the "people" shoved into this tiny band where they have to fight against microwave ovens and friggin lighting systems while bottom of the trash heap networks are given the rest of the spectrum FOR FREE to put crap on the air that provides no value and nobody watches anyway? Shouldn't those airwaves go to something good and useful, and actually help promote society?
It's not so bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Do you drive? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd just like to back up the original poster, and add no, I don't drive, I walk to work. Every day. Oh, and I use the flourescent bulbs.
I understand your annoyance about the fact that the wireless network and bulbs work on the same frequency. I'd use the bulbs without hesitation, if it only affected my house...
Oh, and while we're on the subject of energy saving bulbs, when was the last time anyone here thought about energy consumption of a computer they put together? How about all those who boast about uptimes - are you really using it continuously? Imagine the waste of electricity from that!