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.
For crying out loud... (Score:5, Informative)
The old story even had a poster who mentioned that he'd used the lighting technology Cringley mentioned, and it's nowhere NEAR primetime, so it won't be causing probs for several years, if ever.
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.
Re:For crying out loud... (Score:1)
Excoos for speling
Re:For crying out loud... (Score:2, Informative)
It's key features are:
More good information and additional links are available from your favorite web search engine (or local library) under the topics of Wireless Networking, Wi-Fi, 802.11. Common associated products are Orinoco, Wavelan, etc.
Re:For crying out loud... (Score:1)
It's not so bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, oh... (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, I already have a few energy efficient lights around, and I don't really use WiFi, sooo... guess it doesn't apply to me.
Did you really think this was going to last? (Score:3, Funny)
Unfortunately, it's likely we'll see the death of one or the other before the geeks ever learn to use what they are provided in moderation.
Wot about LED's? (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:Wot about LED's? (Score:3, Informative)
Poor spectrum (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Poor spectrum (Score:2)
They think it because it's true. For example, see the emission spectrum of a standard white LED [bu.edu]. This spectrum has two very distinct peaks, and poorer coverage in other areas of the spectrum. This still produces something approximating "pure" white light, but it's done by combining two relatively narrow-spectrum sources, and that's what makes it seem unnatural.
The Sun produces a much more constant intensity over the entire visible spectrum, as can be seen on this page [harvard.edu]. The Sun's spectrum is far from "poorer and narrower", as you described it - it would more accurately be described as "richer and wider". It does have somewhat lower intensity at the blue end, but that's nothing compared to the gaps in a white LED's spectrum.
The above link also lets you see the spectrum of a fluorescent bulb, which despite some peaks, is still more constant across the spectrum than the LED is.
The issue here is not purely one of human preference, either - in a room illuminated with white LEDs with a spectrum as shown in the first link, reds will be poorly illuminated, and objects with some colors will appear brighter than others. So, I stand by my statement that current LED technology has "a much narrower spectrum of light than any commonly used bulb technology - sort of the opposite of the 'natural light' bulbs that some companies sell."
In future, it's quite possible and likely that LEDs will be used to produce lamps with a wider and more even spectrum, but that certainly isn't the case today.
Isn't it too early? (Score:1)
Not that I really want more EMI all around me into my brains. WiFi or what ever..
Re:Wot about LED's? (Score:1)
The most efficient light source (except for exotics) is still the flourescent tube.
Let me see if I can dig up a reference...
Ah, this should do:
http://www.resurgentsoftware.com/gpetrie/The_Pe
Scroll down to page five. Note that the above link is a
Re:Wot about LED's? (Score:2)
According to that you could run them on less voltage for not that much less light then? And hence be more efficient...
Re:Wot about LED's? (Score:3)
LEDs are diodes. They have a constant voltage drop, generally around 1.2 volts. As you increase the supply voltage (through a resistor) you increase the current flowing through the device. It's not really a function of the voltage applied - you get the same effect by changing the resistor value. It's simply I=V/R (current = voltage / resistance), taking into account the voltage drop across the diode.
What's important is the amount of current flowing through the LED.
Not that it matters... in any case LEDs are, by comparison, not all that efficient.
Re:Wot about LED's? (Score:2)
I love LEDs, but I don't see plastic diodes that happen to emit light when biased properly replacing other forms of artificial light. More likely, something else will come along (perhaps even these 802.11b-killers).
Personally, I run 802.11b in my house so I can use the laptop anywhere. The microwave doesn't affect my connection at all, and these lights probably wouldn't have that much effect at the short distances I typically run (it's a small apartment).
Besides, hopefully we'll all be on 802.11a before these things catch on
Re:Wot about LED's? (Score:2)
Um, stopped at a traffic light lately?
- A.P.
Broadband access is far more important (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Broadband access is far more important (Score:1)
Re:Broadband access is far more important (Score:1)
What's next? (Score:1)
I would pay to see that!
energy (Score:1)
Not a problem, an opportunity! (Score:5, Interesting)
If these lightbulbs are emitting RF in the 2.4GHz spectrum then when will some smart-assed entrepreneur come up with the dual-function lightbulb/WiFi node?
Half the guts is already there -- the transmitter.
If every household and business had these bulbs, think of the massive 802.11 network we could build!
Each bulb could become a node in a new, better, "brighter" Internet.
Okay so I'm kidding!
Of course if that doesn't work -- why can't they just use some sheilding on these bulbs? A very thin (transparent) metal-film conductive coating (of the type they use on LCDs) should do the trick quite nicely and at minimal cost.
Re:Not a problem, an opportunity! (Score:1)
Of course my odea has always been to sell a stereo cabinet with "a new improved IR reflective coating that improves playback on your CD's" and doesn't allow one to use the remote. I wonder how many I could sell before the first return?
Re:Not a problem, an opportunity! (Score:1)
Given that currently small flourescent bulbs (drop-in replacements for incandescents), which use less than a fifth of the power of incandescents cost about $10 (australian), 50c isn't much, really. I can't imagine these new bulbs will be particularly cheaper. at least nowhere near the 50c or so for incandescents.
Re:Not a problem, an opportunity! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not a problem, an opportunity! (Score:1)
rinse, repeat...
Maybe one could insert some kind of EM-shielding fluid into the bulb and shake it 'round until it dries...
Fushion (Score:1)
Re:Fushion (Score:1)
Cringely Section (Score:1)
How many people here (Score:4, Funny)
12% of slashdot judging from the current poll: Preciousss, the sunsss hurtssss.....
Uncontrolled frequencies are doomed anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uncontrolled frequencies are doomed anyway (Score:3, Interesting)
Not broadcasting your own means much less interference AFAIK. This will happen soonest in tightly populated areas.. looked to Japan to be the first to have public access WiFI.
Course i have to ask how does WiFI scale to N users per square mile/km?
Re:Uncontrolled frequencies are doomed anyway (Score:2)
That's a crock. How do you not broadcast your own? You need to transmit to be on the network. Everybody using the network broadcasts.
Bzzzzt! (Score:2)
So what do you want? Unlimited cheap personal freedom of press and perfect universal news retreival or an alternate light bulb? I see fine at night right now, thank you, but I have to pay $65/month for cable. It would be just fine for the FCC to let these folks blot out the 2.4 GHz band, so long as they give the rest of the specturm back to the people.
Re:Real McCoy Challenge (Score:2)
btw, thanks for the comment, I changed the phrasing of the rules now. Glad I did it before you submitted your entry
we need another frequency. (Score:3, Interesting)
now there are technologies they never thought of, like interference from this light. I seriously have a problem with any of these 2.4ghz products: i'm not even guaranteed that my video transmitter will work with my phone without interfering.
i'll wait until Ultra Wide Band [gcn.com] products become available. 3.1ghz phones are just around the corner. then watch us roll into GPS territory. maybe we should just switch back to carrier pigeons (:
All this 2.4 GHZ radiation. (Score:1)
Radiation in my brain.. (Score:2, Funny)
Dude, do not tie you panties in a knot. 400 people around you will need to shove their wi-fi up your ass and wrap you in tin foil for you to absorb all that energy. Not that it is entirely impossible, it's for you to tell, but for most of us - highly unlikely usage pattern.
Some data HERE [mcw.edu]
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.
Re:Maybe It's Just Me... (Score:1)
It really irks me to see countries like Germany turning away from clean energy like nuclear. Until fusion comes around, nuclear is the best choice we have for cheap and abundant power generation.
Re:Maybe It's Just Me... (Score:1)
Re:Okay, I know I'm gonna get flamed, but... (Score:2, Informative)
Also, with breeder reactors, you're not going to run out of fuel, ever (more or less).
You're right that nuclear waste storage is more or less a non-issue though. Just stick is somewhere. Yeah, it'll leak. But so what? We've got plenty of room (note for the geographically impaired: this isn't sarcasm).
Re:Wind? Solar? You're kidding, right? (Score:2, Interesting)
The total cost per kWh (counting upfront capital costs) has been dropping for years, and has now come within a hair of hitting the cost of fossil fuels (for wind). Solar is more expensive, but advances already in the pipeline should bring it to less than nuclear within ten years.
There is indeed resistance to building wind turbines. But in case you've been asleep since the 70's, there's a little resistance to building nuclear power plants too (we haven't built a nuclear power plant since Three Mile Island). And while they kill birds, it's is (and would be, even with a massive increase in generation) a handful. Plate glass windows kill 97 million birds in the US alone (and cars kill another 50 million), whereas wind turbines in the US kill 70,000. That means it'd take a 1000-fold increase before the two are even comparable.
Also, comparing the output of a single wind turbine to a single nuclear power plant is stupid. The question is, how many kWh of production capacity does a given dollar buy you when spent on Nuclear versus Wind? And the answer is, Wind, because the turbines are dirt cheap (compared to a nuclear power plant!).
As for solar panels, they do stop producing when it's cloudy and dark (much like wind turbines stop on calm days). There are two solutions. Large storage batteries, and nuclear plants to help keep them topped up during dark, overcast, calm periods.
Your figure for solar power density isn't completly correct. That's appears to be an average figure, but solar power density depends on your latitude, and ranges from 250 to 100 betweeen the equator and the poles. That means it would only take a square 500km on a side to supply the entire Earth's energy needs if built on the equator. Of course, shipping power from the equator isn't a great idea, but the US's power needs could be met several times over by coverering half of Texas in panels. :-)
That solution isn't cheaper than nuclear (not at the moment), but solar panels have been halving in price every decade since their inception, and it looks like this will continue to around 2030 (at least). Around 2010, both wind and solar will be cheaper than nuclear, and by some estimates wind will cheaper than fossil. And don't forget, fossil fuel generation can't really get any more efficient due to the laws of thermodynamics. The only way fossil fuel generated energy prices are going is up.
Do you drive? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Wireless networks will further allow people to telecommute, reducing dependancy on oil. Sure, right now, most people are a few meters away from the access point, but creative people are building long-range networks using these things, within the boundaries of the current laws, using well-engineered antennas and low-power transmitters.
Look at those super-efficient flourescent bulbs that have been available for years. People just don't use them, probably because they cost more than the super-cheap incandescants that most people are used to.
On a personal level, I've spent a couple hundred dollars building my wireless network at home. Am I supposed to just toss that equipment into a landfill because my neighbor wants to save a few cents and feel that he is being 'green'?
What about the regulations that the FCC has on RF noise-emitting devices - don't they apply, even though the spectrum is free?
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!
Point taken - (Score:2)
About the server, yes, I am one of those 'uptime' boasters - (294 days - Woohoo.) but I specifically chose a machine with pretty low power consumption, plus, where I live, the power comes from nuclear, not oil or coal.
Still, if my neighbor's porch light starts to interfere with my por^H^H^H downloading, I'm going to buy an air rifle...
Re:Do you drive? (Score:2)
Telecommuting is great for some people, but most people actually need to physically be somewhere to get work done, and that includes me.
And incidentally, I take the bus to work. Yes, it burns oil and gas, but public transportation goes a long way towards helping the problem. Here in Los Angeles, there is very little public transportation for various reasons (one is that we have a subway system that is completely filled with concrete, thank you corporate America!) and this is another problem.
While you might be enjoying wireless in your home for various reasons, I can guarantee you that less than 1% of the people in my neighborhood would even consider such a thing if they knew it existed, given their meager budgets. Most people aren't going to use wireless, but efficient lightbulbs will help these people. The fluorescent lights don't have the natural light feel of incandescents, and if these new bulbs provide that then I'd be surprised if they weren't used.
Oh, and Cringley covers the part about FCC regulations in his article.
True enough (Score:2)
I still think that if you introduce a technology that uses a shared public resource such as public bandwidth, you have a responsibility to not trash the resource for others. (Kind of like not organizing a football game in an area of a park where people happen to be having picnics.) Sure, it may be legal, but it's rude.
I'd guess also, that if your neighbors *do* get 'wired' in the next few years, the best way would be using this technology. Wireless NICs will be incredibly cheap in the next few years, while retrofitting apartment buildings with LAN cable will never be.
Do you think these bulbs would be allowed if they interfered at all with television signals, no matter how well they conserve energy? Doubtful.
Re:True enough (Score:2)
And for those people who might need that kind of instant access (reporters are one example I can think of) cellular modems would allow quick submission of data.
As for wiring whole buildings, you're right about that, although many people only have one computer (if that) so they don't need to wire their entire place, they can simply get their connection via their pre-existing phone or cable jack. If they need a LAN, wireless is great, but most people don't need that in the slightest.
I agree though, that these lights shouldn't trash the spectrum. Someone mentioned engineering them using shielding the same way LCD's are shielded, so hopefully something to that effect would be in place. My original post was more hypothetical than anything, a sort of "what do you value more?" thing. I'd easily sacrifice wireless to save on my energy bill, and I'd imagine a lot of other people would do the same. Hopefully we'll never actually have to make that sort of choice, if they can figure out how to properly shield these bulbs.
Re:Maybe It's Just Me... (Score:3)
This is irrelevant to the discussion for two reasons:
Point 1: Oil isn't used to generate all that much electricity in the US. Most US electrical power comes from Coal, Natural Gas, and Nuclear. So light bulbs don't mean didly in the fight against terror. Those 8MPG SUVs, on the other hand...
Point 2: The US doesn't get terribly much oil from the Middle East. Most of the US' oil comes from the US (last time I checked the numbers, we were still the #2 producer of oil on the planet, but Russia's output has gone up quite a lot recently), Venezuela, and Mexico. Oil from Arab countries is less than 20% of US consumption.
It's the Japanese and Europeans who are proping up the dictators in the Middle East, which explains their reluctance to do anything but kowtow to these tyrants.
-jon
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.
The bulb is not even on the market yet (Score:1)
It seems to me that if this *really* poses a problem that it will be noticed and dealt with quickly, assuming that a sufficent number of people with high speed wireless live in an area with one of these lightbulbs being used...
Re:The bulb is not even on the market yet (Score:2)
Since the bulb is not even on the market yet, what is to stop the company from improving the design at the last minute? And where did the author of the article get this information to begin with? It seems kind of shaky.
Well, I actually think that this 'bulb' is already on the market for at least 10 years.
It is very common in Europe to replace normal light bulbs with low power bulbs based on fluorescent TL.
Those 'bulbs' use 8 times less energy than normal bulbs and a ten times longer life time.
Only disadvantage is, that can interfere with wireless equipment.
But I never had any problems with WiFi.
Too much power? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Too much power? (Score:3, Informative)
Don't Wi-Fi cards output in the 20-100 milliwatt range usually? I'd presume that these lights only produce a minor amount of 2.4ghz of output or the FCC'd be all over them. The 2.4Ghz band *is* regulated still - there are limits on power output etc.
Anyway, it all depends on how it is distributed across the 2.4Ghz spectrum - I presume it's peaked being RF excitation, which normally means you're aiming for a narrow energy state in your gas. So, a single 500khz-wide peak with all output power going into it ain't going to hurt too much.
But the other extreme is also true - a few watts of energy, dispersed across the entire 2.4Ghz range will just wind up being a low-level noise.
Re:Too much power? (Score:5, Informative)
In radio, you measure signal power in dBm (decibels referenced to 1 mW). A typical narrowband FM receiver, like a cell phone, has a sensitivity of about -120 dBm - in other words, if the phone is getting -120 dBm at the antenna port it will just barely work. -120 dBm is one 10E-12 of 1 milliwatt - or one thousandth of a picowatt.
For a wireless LAN card, I think they usually want to see about -76 dBm for a good link - that's 10E-7.6 of a milliwatt being received, or about a twentieth of a nanowatt.
Let's say the lamp is a 5 watt lamp (and from what I understand most of these lights are more like 100 watts excitation energy - these aren't your floor lamp!) Let's say the lamp leaks
Now, if the lamp is anything like the microwave pumped lamps I used to work with, you are talking about 500 watts or more of excitation energy - that's +20 dB. If the lamp leaks 1% of its signal (still small enough to have no real effect on the light output) that would be another +20 dB of leakage. You now have taken the lamp from -6 dBm ERP to +34 dBm - and you are now just as "loud" as the network card.
Also, these lamps are pumped by magnetron tubes, same as your microwave oven. These aren't nice, single-frequency sources - they spatter over a fair chunk of the band. So you cannot modulate them and use them as network nodes, and you cannot easily skip over the frequencies they use - they don't just impair one channel of a frequency hopping system, the impair many channels.
However, I have to wonder how the efficency of these lamps compares to the new LEDs on the market - it may be a moot point.
Re:Too much power? (Score:2)
People keep forgetting the energy SCALE here. WiFi communications have very low power levels. Area lighting uses energy in bulk. Even a fraction of bulk energy is still a lot.
So does anyone know the power output(or usage) of these lights
I can't find any figures on these lights. Lets be generous and assume they only leak a single watt as interference. Now assume a *tiny* gas station with just 2 double sided pumps, 2 bulbs per side per pump, 4 for the building exterior, 4 for the interior. And oh yeah, one for the sign. 17 bulbs, 17 watts RF interference. (17 is a joke, I know a local megastation that must exceed 100, not to mention supermarkets).
and exactly what intensity a WiFi will pick up?
WiFi typically runs in the 30-70 milliwatt range with a 100 mW limit. Lets assume you're running the max, 100 mW. To maintain a reliable connection Cisco quotes a minimum signal/noise ratio of 20 decibels, or 100 to 1. Further assume said tiny gas staion is the only background noise.
The equation is therefore:
1/r^2 = 100mW signal/17W noise/20db signal-to-noise
1/r^2 =
r = 130.4 (the interference range must be at least 130.4 times the signal range)
interfer with WiFi
One tiny gas station
I have 2 mid sized gas stations and a supermarket about 1/4 mile from my house. Using less generous assumptions my WiFi range wouldn't be enough for a wireless mouse or keyboard, not to mention Bluetooth which only uses 10 mW and yeilds a range I can hold in my hand.
-
Re:Too much power? (Score:2)
It certainly does add, though it might not be linear.
find it hard to believe that a light bulb would be call "energy effiecent" if it is loosing 1W in an frequency far away from its intended output, as you assume.
Then you don't know much about light bulbs - and these lights in particular. I assumed 1 watt out of 12 was wasted as RF emmisions. I believe the figure is actually much higher. Considering that an ordinary 60 watt light bulb blows about 57 watts (95%) as heat emmisions to create 3 watts of light. These bulbs generate 12 watts RF and convert a percentage to light. If even 50% is converted to light they would still be would be "energy effeceint" while blasting out 6 watts of RF noise.
-
/Cringly? & did you read the article? (Score:1)
2. Did the submitter read the article? The gist of the story was that 802.11b would work just fine with the new, RF-noisy lights.
3. Yes, a more insightful webpage & technically detailed website was listed on slashdot just a couple of weeks ago.
microwave radiation (Score:1)
seen it before... (Score:1, Troll)
Mr Cringley has cribbed a bit belatedly
Re:seen it before... (Score:1)
hee hee. "My new lighting technique is unstoppable!"
--
I bet this will cost me... (Score:1)
To quote a famous rapper, modified for the slashdot masses
So the FCC won't let me be
Or let me be me so let me see
They tried to shut me down on 802.11b
Lightbulb Power Consumption (Score:2)
They will just light up more bulbs. (Score:1, Insightful)
Just get us fusion power.
Re:Lightbulb Power Consumption (Score:2)
It's not quite that simple. If the building needs heating anyway then the heat isn't really waste. It becomes waste heat where the building needs cooling, then not only is that energy wasted, but also energy can need to be expended on removing the heat.
Re:Lightbulb Power Consumption (Score:2)
No, but the energy used by the light bulbs and dissipated as heat is probably more than the energy that would be consumed by your central heating unit for the same amount of heat, since the heating unit is designed to produce heat and the bulb isn't. So it's still likely that you would save energy by using CFL lighting and having to run the heat pump a tiny bit more. Even if it's a break-even or a slight loss, you will make up for it when it gets warm again, unless you live somewhere where you never need cooling.
Re:Lightbulb Power Consumption (Score:2)
It is impossible to create or destroy energy - 'wasted' energy always ends up as heat. So if you need the heat then it really doesn't matter that your electrical devices are inefficient - they're perfectly efficient at producing heat! If and when you don't need the heat, or the devices are producing heat in the wrong places, then I agree that you would be better off making them more efficient. Of course we should consider the energy cost of manufacturing new hardware, too.
Re:Lightbulb Power Consumption (Score:2)
Re:Lightbulb Power Consumption (Score:2)
However, by separating the functions you now have the flexibility to provide heat from other sources that may be more economical, such as natural gas, or (in some cases) a heat pump.
And if you ever need cooling, the new lightbulb obviously wins, since you don't have to simultaneously pay to both heat the room with the light bulb and cool it with an air conditioner.
I doubt that there are many buildings that need heating when there is cold weather, and for which the lighting is sufficient to provide that heating year-round. So most buildings that ever need heating already have some other provision for it, and don't need it from the lighting.
network through neon bulbs? (Score:2)
FCC regulations (Score:2, Interesting)
The EMC directive: you're allowed to radiate gibberish, brain-dead stupidity, pornography etc. but NOT NOISE
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.
There goes another one (Score:1)
Re:There goes another one (Score:2)
Re:There goes another one (Score:1)
Are you the guy messing up my light bulb?
- 'free' at work though -
I think you answered your own question.
;)
Re:There goes another one (Score:2)
Damnit! I want my cake and eat it too! (Score:2)
Wireless lightbulbs? If that' not idiocy, what is? (Score:1)
Is it really true that the US patent office is dumb enough to not even do any safety checking procedures at all ?
I thought the one-button online click was pretty bad, but anyone who doesn't even bother to go through all the safety steps involved in the counter-checking has definately wasted too much time sleeping in the office.
I'm off to have tea and sleep it off now.
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.
Re:What nonsense. (Score:2)
Part 18 governs industrial, scientific, and medical devices that don't communicate data, but rather emit radiation as a direct purpose of their utility: microwave offices, industrial sealers, etc.
Re:What nonsense. (Score:2)
In your other examples, emitted microwave radiation is the desired function, rather than incidental.
Re:What nonsense. (Score:3, Interesting)
These lights could very well be Part 18, although RF lighting isn't mentioned specifically in the section.
I don't know the specifics of the design of these lights, so it's really hard to say. Shooting RF energy through a glass tube to excite a gas doesn't seem like it should radiate so much energy as to wipe out wireless networks for half a mile in any direction.
Personally, I'd have reservations about sitting under such lighting all day if it did!
Part 18 devices are limited to 2.4 GHz - 2.5 GHz, which unfortunately wipes out the entire Part 15 subband. They're also authorized a much higher field strength... at less than 500 watts (which we can assume these lights will be) it's 25 microvolts per meter measured at 300 meters.
However, I still don't see these fixtures being a problem for reasons aside from the Part 15/18 argument.
Properly designed, these lights should only emit spurious emissions at very low power and at specific frequencies and harmonics within the ISM band. Spread spectrum devices should see around this interference. Perhaps the range or speed would be a little more limited, it shouldn't be a huge impact unless your base station is sitting right under one of these lights (which is possible).
Also, you must consider market pressures. If they hope to sell these devices to businesses (the largest consumer of flourescent light bulbs) they simply have to consider wireless networks. By the time these fixtures are available on the market, wireless networking will only be more common.
No enterprise is going to purchase lighting devices that wipe out their wireless infrastructure.
Re:What nonsense. (Score:3, Interesting)
RF lighting IS specifically mentioned in Part 18 (it's early, sorry).
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?
Re:Better question... (Score:2)
Kevin here also seems to agree... calling our airwaves a 'precious natural resource'.
http://www.gcn.com/21_6/dod/18161-1.html
"Spectrum management decisions are always complex and challenging," said Kevin J. Martin, another FCC commissioner. "In an environment where the amount of unencumbered spectrum is decreasing while demand continues to grow, it is even more critical we make interference and sharing decisions that do not waste this precious natural resource."
802.11 was here first!!!! (Score:1)
The choice is obvious. (Score:1)
Plus, let's go ahead and use up all the electricity we can. Let our kids deal with the problem. Those bastards deserve it.
Obvious Solution (Score:2)
Each of those little light bulbs should come with an RJ-45 socket.
Regards, Ralph.
it's not just the WiFi though (Score:2, Informative)
WiFi i can't care less -- 802.11a is already making headways, by the time any kind of remotely user base of the light bulbs are established, i would have (as i assume a large portion of the rest of y'all) moved onto 5.8Ghz; or drop the speed down to 2Mbps; -- DSL is only 1.5 anyway -- and if i was really gonna move that much file -- i would just pull a cable temporarily or start the transfer and get some coffee -- either way i do not see it being a big problem for WiFi.
on the other hand, i don't see the feasibility of XM radios getting an upgrade... so if these bulbs do get popular, it means XM would work everywhere except the cities. ha!
so if they are really that troublesome, we will be seeing the company getting squashed in no time; there are too much $$ at stake for XM;
Has anyone checked out dimmers? (Score:2)
Hey ALU (or any other dimmer experts) (Score:2)
This is ridiculous... (Score:2)
Why i hate /. readers (Score:2)
One wreaks [dictionary.com] havoc, not wrecks havoc.
Are basic english skills too much to ask for? And I'm not whining about people who speak English as a second language. I'm talking about the english-is-my-first-language-but-i'm-too-fucking-i ncompetent-to-speak/write-it-correctly crowd.
Re:There ought to be a way... (Score:1)
Yes, except that the shielding would also keep the light from being emmited, doh!
Re:Isn't this illegal? (Score:3, Funny)
on a related note, where the hell did this WiFi acronym come from and why does it stand for Wireless Fidelity? My dad mentioned was reading a news paper and he says "Son have you heard of this WiFi or Wireless Fidelety?" and i laughed in his face and made fun of him for getting suckerd by an ignorant news reporter who was just assuming what WiFi stood for (HiFi means High Fidelity, so WiFi must mean Wireless Fidelity) The logic seemed assinine to me at the time, even though I didn't know what the Fi stood for. Turns out _I_ was the rube. Does anyone have any idea what Fidelity has to do with computer networking? Isn't fidelity sort of implied when you're dealing with digital transmission? Am I getting too worked up over a stupid marketing ploy?
Re:"wreck" havoc? (Score:2)